Parodite wrote:SM en Mr.P. thanks.
1. Can you give any examples, in past or present, where actions of bankers or other free individuals working in the financial industry were/are illegal?
2. Can you give any examples of actions that are legal now but should be illegal in the future?
3. Can you give any examples of actions that are illegal now but should be legal in the future?
4. If you want to abolish the FED and prevent government interference as per Funny Dismay, don't you need new rules and regulations?
5. Do you think the food industry needs to be regulated?
As for the "Well.. people do screw up from time to time.. can't prevent all that by law,,,", does that mean you'd prefer to downgrade current civil and criminal law considerably or even abolish it entirely? In a way I also prefer conflicts be resolved man to man.
Seriously, I don't mind taking it up with a banker or speculator who gambled away my pension savings and give him the bullet.
Excellent questions Parodite, how to answer without being either flippant or spending days typing is a problem. I’ll try, but the questions themselves would require volumes to answer to most people’s satisfaction. The recent trends towards privatizing profits and socializing losses say nothing about a free market, yet speaks volumes of a culture of corruption.
1. This may seem a copout, but I am not really a banking history scholar. I don’t think regulations prevent dishonest behaviour, especially when the regulators themselves can be bought, or when dishonest acts can be performed legally. While there is a big difference between dishonest and illegal, I think the vast majority of human actions are determined by what is culturally moral, rather than legislatively legal.
2&3. Rand Paul has recently published a book called Government Bullies:
http://www.amazon.com/Government-Bullie ... 1455522759
From the interviews I have heard it would be a good source of the examples you seek. Here is another book I have heard discussed that may provide the examples you seek:
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Da ... 1594032556
From my own experience, in agriculture, construction, and the nuclear industry, I could give you numerous examples of regulations driving up costs, with actual/potential benefits that are not measurable, and therefore, potentially non-existent. Unfortunately, I am just too damn lazy to type up the background details that would define the examples enough to make the anecdotes meaningful. My brother who has been a builder for 25 years could talk your ear off about how his business costs have been driven up due to ever increasing regulations. Quick example, it is now a law in NY state that my brother can not hire just anyone to plow snow. The potential snow plow contractor has to get certification from Albany. So much for the little guy….
It would be interesting to see a graph of the number of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations over the last 80 years or so... Then add to that state regulations and county regulations.
Even the Feds know that you can’t impose the same requirements that OSHA imposes on the manufacturing industry, on the farming or construction industries, without destroying both. When I think of the regulatory increase I have seen in the last 30 years, in the few industries I have worked, I am amazed that there is any industry left in the US. Yet people desire to blame corporations, strange…..
Can’t blame it all on the FEDS though, a lot of blame falls on the culture of litigation.
4. IIRC, a past publication from the Elliott Wavers traced existing financial de-regulation over the last 70 years or so to show the regulations are also indicators of social mood. Send me your email address via PM and I will see if I can find the pdf file of that issue or one that shows similar phenomena.
I agree with the EWers that Regulation/Deregulation are not causes of bull/bear market swings, both are effects. As social mood become more optimistic and people become less risk adverse, and people become ever more ready and willing to gamble with the rent money, elected officals/legislators (the ultimate measure of the crowd) comply by making it ever easier to gamble with the rent money . Few things encourage risky behaviour more than knowing safety nets exist/one will not bear the pain of their bad decisions. Too often, regulation is locking barn door after the horse is out.
I would think that disbanding the organizations you list would require at least 1 page of new legislation.
5. So many variables exist here, I don’t know where to start. Is some regulation required? Perhaps. How much? Who is to say? There has been less in the past, and whether “we” have been better off or worse off would depend on the personal stories one heard. This would require a case by case determination.
I am not at all sure what you mean by this: "does that mean you'd prefer to downgrade current civil and criminal law considerably or even abolish it entirely?" downgrade implies making something worse. As your cartoon implied, a well armed society is a very polite society.
Ask the convicted criminals if the they fear the long arm of the law more than a potential victim who is well armed.
Short answer, I have the utmost confidence in individuals to behave well when they realize that they will reap what they sow, both in terms of enjoying the benefits of their good decisions/judgement, and suffering the consequences of their bad decisions/judgement. Too much insulation/protection destroys the feedback mechanisms that we all depend upon to stay on course.
How much is too much, and how much is not enough will always vary with each individual. How to help others without providing perverse incentives that encourage self-destruction or arrested development is always a judgement call. Best decided as close to the source as possible and on a specific case by case basis.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."