Disco Boy wrote:
A rope leash wrote:
Bankers, who have heavy influence on governments, were the main force behind deregulation. It's part of the boom-bust cycle, whereupon certain individuals get fantastically rich at the expense of all others. So, deregulation was in fact more government, not less.
But let's not kid ourselves into thinking the socialists here will EVER admit that.
Ah. So it would appear that Ron Paul himself is calling for more government, not less, as his answer to preventing certain individuals from getting fantastically rich at the expense of others would appear to be... deregulation.
"The Moral Hazard of Regulation
by Ron Paul
Since the bailout bill passed, I have been frequently disturbed to hear “experts” wrongly blaming the free market for our recent economic problems and calling for more regulation. In fact, further regulation can only make things worse.
It is important to understand that regulators are not omniscient. It is not feasible for them to anticipate every possible thing that could go wrong with whatever industry or activity they are regulating. They are making their best guesses when formulating rules. It is often difficult for those being regulated to understand the many complex rules they are expected to follow. Very wealthy corporations hire attorneys who may discover a myriad of loopholes to exploit and render the spirit of the regulations null and void. For this reason, heavy regulation favors big business against those small businesses who cannot afford high-priced attorneys.
The other problem is the trust that people blindly put in regulations, and the moral hazard this creates. Too many people trust government regulators so completely that they abdicate their own common sense to these government bureaucrats. They trust that if something violates no law, it must be safe. How many scams have “It’s perfectly legal” as a hypnotic selling point, luring in the gullible?
Many people did not understand the financial house of cards that are derivatives, but since they were legal and promised a great return, people invested. It is much the same in any area rife with government involvement. Many feel that just because their children are getting good grades at a government school, they are getting a good education. After all, they are passing the government-mandated litmus test. But, this does not guarantee educational excellence. Neither is it always the case that a child who does NOT achieve good marks in school is going to be unsuccessful in life.
Is your drinking water safe, just because the government says it is? Is the internet going to magically become safer for your children if the government approves regulations on it? I would caution any parent against believing this would be the case. Nothing should take the place of your own common sense and due diligence.
These principles explain why the free market works so much better than a centrally planned economy. With central planning, everything shifts from one’s own judgment about safety, wisdom and relative benefits of a behavior, to the discretion of government bureaucrats. The question then becomes “what can I get away with,” and there will always be advantages for those who can afford lawyers to find the loopholes. The result then is that bad behavior, that would quickly fail under the free market, is propped up, protected and perpetuated, and sometimes good behavior is actually discouraged.
Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy. This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in. Rather, it will only exacerbate it."http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-11-10/ron-p ... ngs-worse/
Based on A rope leash articulation of his last sentence quoted above, I don't think you understood what he meant. Though, I might not have either. We should all know that deregulation means less Government interference in the market. But in essence, when A rope leash stated, "So, deregulation was in fact more government, not less", I think he didn't literally mean that more Government = deregulation. I believe he meant that since that Corporatism greases Government with their lobbyists in order indemnify themselves and work together to make each other wealthier (which is possible in a Mixed Economy but not in a truly Capitalist Economy), that Government is still involved in some way regardless if there's a mitigated form of deregulation in place.
But maybe A rope leash can clear this up?
Deregulation, as Ron paul supports it, only serves to promote cheap labor while stealing jobs and money from those who have worked their way up the ladder their entire lives.
RP does NOT support THAT form of deregulation.
Remember when I said you don't understand Ron Paul's platform from a hole in the wall? Well, that applies here too, genius.
I'm sure Honey Boo Boo will come up with some cocamamy reasoning and excuse, like trying to claim that Ron Paul wasn't the author of Ron Pauls racist newsletters, why collecting campaign contributions and doing photo-opts with the former head of the kkk and American Nazi party.
1. RP wasn't the author of the particular newsletters that included racist material. I have already discredited, if not PROVEN this. Especially because he is NOT a bullshitter.
2. The campaign contribution in 2007 by the KKK was for the amount of $500. But when RP received it, he said he would use it for what he wanted it used for and not for what they wanted it used for.
3. Politicians do THOUSANDS of photo-ops during campaigns. RP didn't know them from a hole in the wall, nor did he know the vast majority of people he posed for photo-ops with.
WE'VE been over this COUNTLESS TIMES.
Admittedly, they're not the best group of supporters to be even relatively associated with. But liberty is liberty. And as far as I'm concerned, as long as you're of age and not harming anyone else, you should have the freedom to do whatever you want with your life. And in so many words, so says the US Constitution...
A rope leash wrote:
As I understand it, the theory is that the free market becomes self-regulating due to the pressures of the market participants. That is, no one wants to get a bad reputation for poisoning the environment, selling bad loans, paying low wages, ect.
And the extremely varied competition helps to self-enforce that to a large extent too.
A rope leash wrote:
That might be a little on the hopeful side, and I do think that there should be some rules and regulations, but governments try to regulate industries they have no expertise in, and I think this is what Ron is referring to when he says more regulation will hurt.
A free market economy (or an economy with free market principles) wouldn't be a utopian system. But it definitely would be better than the Mixed Economy we live in today - history PROVES this (Mussolini's Italy of the early-mid '20s...and The Roaring '20s are probably the best examples). And of course, the Housing Bubble Crisis would have NEVER happened if we lived in a free market economy (or in an economy with free market principles). Ayn Rand was correct. She warned us about the evils of socialism and Government interference in...
Btw, it's THE best selling novel of all time. And its sales spike whenever there's a recession/depression...