Regulation Is Not a Bad Word
Or so we're told over at The Smirking Chimp. I link to this only because it amazes me that such ignoramuses exist. There are layers and layers and layers of regulators all over this economy, and this person's response: More! More! More! The free market is stupid! Lack of regulation leads to financial meltdowns! (I'm going to go way out on a limb and propose that our friend has never heard of business cycle theory.)
(Oh, and did you know John McCain -- as mainstream and interventionist as they come -- favors an "unregulated" economy?)
Not even a speck of curiosity as to what might have caused it all -- probably just greed, on the part of businessmen who need to be regulated! Not one word about the Fed. And then we get this gem: "Unless you're a highly paid executive in the financial industry, you'd have to be crazy or ignorant to repeat the mantra of deregulation at this point in our history. We have deregulated to the bone and we now see the consequences. Bear Stearns, Enron, Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, Indy Mac and the list threatens to grow to 150 other banks. Now is not the time for deregulation."
Then: "Democrats must insist on further regulation if they are going to agree to bailing out all these companies and institutions." The possibility of not bailing them out, the possibility that Fannie and "Freddy" [sic] shouldn't exist, and/or shouldn't rely on the guarantee of a taxpayer bailout as they make decisions, never occurs to this guy, who's apparently ready to bail out the fat cats while posing as a defender of all of us. Just when I can't stand the Right anymore, I'm reminded of how blockheaded and resistant to economic knowledge the Left is.
Comments (11)
Yep, he seems like a real moron. Not surprised.
Published: July 17, 2008 11:36 AM
Historian Gordon Wood explains that in 18th century America "Regulation" generally meant "to make regular", as in to keep it going smoothly, like in trade, for intance.
Agreed?
Published: July 17, 2008 11:47 AM
Yes, agreed. That's the sense in which "regulate commerce" was intended, for instance -- knock down barriers to trade in order to make it more "regular."
Published: July 17, 2008 1:48 PM
Don't worry, I'm as sick as you are over the current and imminent political situation. *sigh*
Published: July 17, 2008 1:50 PM
Thank you, Dr. Woods!
I am afraid that many dictionaries are not etymologically sound....
Published: July 17, 2008 2:27 PM
Maybe the guy needs more fiber, so, you know, he'll be more "regulated", instead of coming up with this crap from the bathroom.
Published: July 17, 2008 2:28 PM
I couldn't read it all and skipped to the comments - couldn't read them all, either.
Apparently, the smirking chimps haven't noticed the that the U.K., under the Labour Party (a member of the Party of European Socialists), isn't doing so well either. Oh, right! That must be Thatcher's fault!
Published: July 17, 2008 2:59 PM
Am I the only one who sees where this is headed? When guys like this start getting more and more publicity it scares me. Remember that the Hoover and his "do nothing" (read intervention) policies gave us Roosevelt and his "enlightened" (in-your-face intervention) policies.
Can anyone suggest a more Libertarian country that isn't jumping on the Socialist band wagon.
Published: July 18, 2008 12:19 PM
Regulation is what gets done by people who don't know what they are doing in the first place!
Published: July 18, 2008 1:11 PM
Yep regulations are nothing but handicaps administered to late-comers by the first-comers. Why not dismiss every law it really empowers some over others? There's no proof murder laws have an effect on the murder - most murders are between family, 'friends' and acquaintances as opposed to many a movie's depiction of murder as between random strangers. Likewise what of the laws where children are forbidden from doing that which is considered 'adult' behaviour? Go back a couple hundred years and children could do pretty much all what an adult could - drink, smoke, work, etc. Don't laws require lawmakers and law enforcers? Don't regulation imply regulators? A situation where one group of people decide they are higher-ranking and know better that they have the right to restrict the movement and actions of others?
Published: July 18, 2008 9:08 PM
This guy is pissed off at Republicans and thereby at any stand they take.
This is no different from Rosie O'Donnell hating Christianity because she was brought up in a religious christian family.
He is right as a kid he was "brainwashed" into deregulation, because his parents didn't teach him "WHY deregulation is good", so of course the day he starts thinking of his own, more regulation sounds perfect and logical to him.
If you notice he makes little logical argument against deregulation, his logic is "Since you can't defend complete deregulation(coz I don't think of it), you must not be able to defend any amount of deregulation, ergo I win the argument".
Published: July 19, 2008 9:15 AM