PDA

View Full Version : Can someone explain this Conley quote? Is this pro-regulation??




AJ Antimony
09-25-2008, 08:49 PM
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9074497&nav=0RaP


Conley tells WIS News 10 the root of the problem is Republican deregulation of the financial sector in the past decade.

"We can trace this--and other recent bailouts, as well as high gasoline prices--to the repeal of regulations enacted during the 1930's. Lindsey Graham's vote to repeal those very regulations created the current crises. Thanks to Graham and his friends on Capitol Hill, we're looking at Herbert Hoover all over again." Conley noted.

?

UnReconstructed
09-25-2008, 09:10 PM
wow

sounds like he is saying the problem is that there aren't enough regulations. I've heard other statist types say this over the last week.

AJ Antimony
09-25-2008, 10:00 PM
I thought he was a Ron Paul Democrat...

DRV45N05
09-25-2008, 10:26 PM
I thought he was a Ron Paul Democrat...

He seems like a paleoconservative Ron Paul supporter. Many paleoconservatives support regulation of corporations.

gaazn
09-26-2008, 07:17 AM
When businesses are too big that they can influence government to maintain their superior market position, then there is no free market. To maintain a free market, there has to be some regulation. That's the irony. You cannot be for big business and small business at the same time.

DRV45N05
09-26-2008, 10:17 AM
When businesses are too big that they can influence government to maintain their superior market position, then there is no free market. To maintain a free market, there has to be some regulation. That's the irony. You cannot be for big business and small business at the same time.

You need to regulate the GOVERNMENT to ensure that it doesn't favor big business in policies.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-26-2008, 12:10 PM
I agree with the last two posts.

I would also say that even as a Libertarian I think we need to be careful at how de-regulation effects things.

There were people who campaigned on de-regulating the media. And all they did was de-regulate how much of it one person could own. They did not de-regulate what it takes to get into the media, or anything that would help the little guy compete.

So, now anyone like Rupert Murdoch with a lot of money can buy up VAST quantities of the media, and with it, vast amounts of influence and power. He cannot pick who the president is, but he can exclude people to make sure that some people will not get elected.

That presents a clear and present danger to our national security in a huge way.

AJ Antimony
09-26-2008, 01:53 PM
To maintain a free market, there has to be some regulation.

I thought the Austrian school calls for no government in the markets. Isn't this true? If not, what regulations are you speaking of?

gaazn
09-26-2008, 04:17 PM
I thought the Austrian school calls for no government in the markets. Isn't this true? If not, what regulations are you speaking of?


We live in a real world and not textbook economic world. We are stuck with a system that allows big businesses to have advantages such as tax breaks and incentives that are not available to smaller businesses. The regulations I am supportive of are ones that encourage competition, making the market a freer market. You have to pick between protecting small business or big business; you can't support both, although politicians pretend to by dangling a bone once in a while to small businesses. Because in the real world big businesses have the leverage and power to influence govt to maintain their advantage in the market, I believe that supporting small business would help make the market more competitive.

Regulations that encourage competition include: not allowing mega-mergers like ExxonMobil and the new AT&T and breaking some of them up. Honestly, does anyone think that the rule preventing Bank of America from getting more than 10% market share of the banking industry is a bad thing?

AJ Antimony
09-26-2008, 05:19 PM
We live in a real world and not textbook economic world. We are stuck with a system that allows big businesses to have advantages such as tax breaks and incentives that are not available to smaller businesses. The regulations I am supportive of are ones that encourage competition, making the market a freer market. You have to pick between protecting small business or big business; you can't support both, although politicians pretend to by dangling a bone once in a while to small businesses. Because in the real world big businesses have the leverage and power to influence govt to maintain their advantage in the market, I believe that supporting small business would help make the market more competitive.

Regulations that encourage competition include: not allowing mega-mergers like ExxonMobil and the new AT&T and breaking some of them up. Honestly, does anyone think that the rule preventing Bank of America from getting more than 10% market share of the banking industry is a bad thing?

The only way to ensure competition is to have no regulations for anybody! Then the free market--the consumers themselves--decide which business to support. If the people end up buying a product from a single, large corporation, then it's because that one single company provides the best product for the lowest price.

And guess what, when Congress goes and passes big business regulations, guess who actually writes them? Big businesses to squash small business competition!

UnReconstructed
09-26-2008, 06:22 PM
lol at To maintain a free market, there has to be some regulation

It won't be a free market as long as the unit of exchange says "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER..."

Let the market decide what money is not the guv'rment.

bill50
09-26-2008, 08:28 PM
You need to regulate the GOVERNMENT to ensure that it doesn't favor big business in policies.



Bingo!

bill50
09-26-2008, 08:29 PM
The only way to ensure competition is to have no regulations for anybody! Then the free market--the consumers themselves--decide which business to support. If the people end up buying a product from a single, large corporation, then it's because that one single company provides the best product for the lowest price.

The best solution if it was possible to convince the public of the truth.

Imperial
09-26-2008, 08:43 PM
The only way to ensure competition is to have no regulations for anybody! Then the free market--the consumers themselves--decide which business to support. If the people end up buying a product from a single, large corporation, then it's because that one single company provides the best product for the lowest price.

The only problem is that when there already are super companies, like JP Morgan-Chase, deregulating some things is only going to allow them to stifle competition. Monopolizing goods can produce efficiency while also having bad effects, like abusing the workers or slightly churning down the quality of goods. Only boycott or strike could really open up competition at that point.

RSLudlum
09-26-2008, 08:46 PM
Monopolies can never last in a true free market. Monopolies can only exist with government intervention/regulation eg The Federal Reserve.

jcarcinogen
09-26-2008, 10:55 PM
We live in a real world and not textbook economic world. We are stuck with a system that allows big businesses to have advantages such as tax breaks and incentives that are not available to smaller businesses. The regulations I am supportive of are ones that encourage competition, making the market a freer market. You have to pick between protecting small business or big business; you can't support both, although politicians pretend to by dangling a bone once in a while to small businesses. Because in the real world big businesses have the leverage and power to influence govt to maintain their advantage in the market, I believe that supporting small business would help make the market more competitive.

Regulations that encourage competition include: not allowing mega-mergers like ExxonMobil and the new AT&T and breaking some of them up. Honestly, does anyone think that the rule preventing Bank of America from getting more than 10% market share of the banking industry is a bad thing?

Cronyism and greed with just months left for the Administration and they can run off to foreign countries.

AJ Antimony
09-27-2008, 11:46 AM
The only problem is that when there already are super companies, like JP Morgan-Chase, deregulating some things is only going to allow them to stifle competition.

How so? If you remove EVERY regulation, then it will be easier for small banks to open up and compete. If JP Morgan simply purchases these new banks... well, good for them. They should have the freedom to do it. In fact, who cares how big JP Morgan gets. As long as there are no laws crippling the formation of new competition, then the consumers will always have the opportunity to take their money elsewhere.

Jason T
09-27-2008, 08:35 PM
Fannie / Freddie got so big by having the government use regulations to knee cap their opponents...

I find it funny that everyone is bitching about the $700B while ignoring Fannie/Freddie, their bailout is estimated to cost 1 to 2 trillion when all is said and done.

gaazn
09-27-2008, 10:41 PM
Letting the market decide everything works only in Econ 101, not in the real world. It assumes among other things perfect information, which is impossible, and that every business is good, which they are not. When zero regulation allows businesses to collude among themselves and restrict new competition, is the market really free?

We can see some of the real disastrous effects of what happens when businesses can do whatever they want in order to maximize profits, especially on a short term basis. Some businesses will choose to include unsafe ingredients in their products to save money. What the "market" thought they were getting is not necessary what they get. So are we to let thousands of people get sick or die before we let the market realize this and adjust to the information. This happens in places like China all the time because there is much less regulation there. Zero regulation will lead to either poor quality, or it will lead to an illiquid or no market because consumers are afraid to even participate. Compare the volume of the regulated Nasdaq/NYSE to the less regulated pink sheets.

Neil Kiernan Stephenson
09-28-2008, 11:35 AM
I was going to quote a couple of different posts here, but I will just try to compile what I agree with above.

As someone pointed out, when there are already big companies then it is not a level playing field.

And you have to have money to make money. De-regulating will make it a little easier for people to start new businesses and banks, but it is not enough to do it on it's own.

At this point, de-regulating without putting some serious thought into the implementation of de-regulation could leave us worse off then ever before.

As the industry standard for what is expected of laborers and what they can expect to earn is being lowered to near slave labor conditions around the world, the power of people outside of the already rich to start their own businesses is quickly shrinking. One cannot just snap their fingers and start a business, particularly one that can have any hope to compete with businesses that are willing to employ people outside the United States at near slave labor conditions. You just cannot beat their prices because of their lack of overhead in the form of wages and benefits. Ask the people who went out of business in some places thanks to Wal-Mart.

Just an FYI. It's not that I don't think that de-regulation is the best answer. I do believe it can work. But if someone has cancer you don't grab a butcher knife and cut it out. You get someone who knows what they are doing to get a precise instrument to perform the procedure. And that's what we need here. My above story about what happened when we "de-regulated" the media is an excellent example of what can go wrong.

AJ Antimony
09-28-2008, 04:36 PM
Letting the market decide everything works only in Econ 101, not in the real world. It assumes among other things perfect information, which is impossible, and that every business is good, which they are not. When zero regulation allows businesses to collude among themselves and restrict new competition, is the market really free?

We can see some of the real disastrous effects of what happens when businesses can do whatever they want in order to maximize profits, especially on a short term basis. Some businesses will choose to include unsafe ingredients in their products to save money. What the "market" thought they were getting is not necessary what they get. So are we to let thousands of people get sick or die before we let the market realize this and adjust to the information. This happens in places like China all the time because there is much less regulation there. Zero regulation will lead to either poor quality, or it will lead to an illiquid or no market because consumers are afraid to even participate. Compare the volume of the regulated Nasdaq/NYSE to the less regulated pink sheets.

1. Yes it does. Problem is the real world isn't a free market. Too much government.

2. Yes. Those colluding businesses you speak of won't exist too long if they are colluding to fuck the American people. Consumers will easily take their money elsewhere. Then those businesses you speak of will go away.

3. That's right. Stupid businesses will make stupid decisions. Unfortunately for your argument, businesses like this don't prosper. They go under. Immediately. They pay the price for being dumbshits. I know your response to this is "that's not how it works in the real world today." You're right. Thank government for that.

4. "We" aren't responsible for other companies. If they want to fuck themselves, then they will put crap in their products. If people happen to buy those products, it's not my fault what happens to them. Unlike them, I'd do my research before buying products, that way I know exactly what I'm getting.

5. All the time? No offense, but I think you're full of shit. I really don't think you can name one other example other than those stupid toys where China has had a 'bad' product. Oh, and then there's the fact that China is regulated as FUCK, being Communists and all.

Ever heard of a place called Hong Kong? It's in China. It used to be controlled strongly by the government and thus was a very poor country. Then years ago Hong Kong got almost all government out of the market place. Since then they have prospered like no other and have an incredible standard of living. Like it or not, TRUE deregulation brings prosperity.

Imperial
09-28-2008, 07:59 PM
I was going to quote a couple of different posts here, but I will just try to compile what I agree with above.

As someone pointed out, when there are already big companies then it is not a level playing field.

And you have to have money to make money. De-regulating will make it a little easier for people to start new businesses and banks, but it is not enough to do it on it's own.

At this point, de-regulating without putting some serious thought into the implementation of de-regulation could leave us worse off then ever before.

As the industry standard for what is expected of laborers and what they can expect to earn is being lowered to near slave labor conditions around the world, the power of people outside of the already rich to start their own businesses is quickly shrinking. One cannot just snap their fingers and start a business, particularly one that can have any hope to compete with businesses that are willing to employ people outside the United States at near slave labor conditions. You just cannot beat their prices because of their lack of overhead in the form of wages and benefits. Ask the people who went out of business in some places thanks to Wal-Mart.

Just an FYI. It's not that I don't think that de-regulation is the best answer. I do believe it can work. But if someone has cancer you don't grab a butcher knife and cut it out. You get someone who knows what they are doing to get a precise instrument to perform the procedure. And that's what we need here. My above story about what happened when we "de-regulated" the media is an excellent example of what can go wrong.

+1


Yes it does. Problem is the real world isn't a free market. Too much government.

Exactly. And will people ever get rid of all that government. No. You can work towards it, but it will never all go away. We will never have an anarchist society. We can move in that direction, but economics can only work within the framework of the market. And, while government cannot control the market, it can influence it or change its perception.

Jeremy
09-28-2008, 08:05 PM
I thought the Austrian school calls for no government in the markets. Isn't this true? If not, what regulations are you speaking of?

the regulation against fraud... this is "good regulation" as Ron Paul called it

gaazn
09-29-2008, 01:26 PM
A lot of ignorant people don't realize that China's market (not politics) is less regulated than the U.S. Fewer taxes and fewer rules. Nor do they realize the history of early American Industrialization when there was little regulation and harmful products were injected into the market. A perfect market works only in textbooks where there are only two parties with complete information selling widgets and gadgets. Also, they don't realize that there will be an illiquid or no market if there is no confidence in the markets. Without a market there's no incentive to produce. That's why zero regulation will never work. Lastly, a lot of ignorant people like to curse to get their point across. I am not sure why, but I think it is to sound more intelligent and professional.

AJ Antimony
09-29-2008, 09:04 PM
A lot of ignorant people don't realize that China's market (not politics) is less regulated than the U.S. Fewer taxes and fewer rules. Nor do they realize the history of early American Industrialization when there was little regulation and harmful products were injected into the market. A perfect market works only in textbooks where there are only two parties with complete information selling widgets and gadgets. Also, they don't realize that there will be an illiquid or no market if there is no confidence in the markets. Without a market there's no incentive to produce. That's why zero regulation will never work. Lastly, a lot of ignorant people like to curse to get their point across. I am not sure why, but I think it is to sound more intelligent and professional.

I think when you were reading these textbooks you're speaking of, you seemed to completely gloss over ceteris paribus.

Mini-Me
09-30-2008, 08:48 AM
As far as Conley goes: He's not the perfect laissez-faire capitalist, no...but his ideal policies seem way better than what we have now, that's for sure.

gaazn, on the subject of regulation: I've written about this many times before in detail, but the main problem with allowing ANY arbitrary regulation, especially at the federal level, is that doing so gives Congress the power to legislate ALL the arbitrary regulation that it or its string-pullers want. Almost all regulation, however benevolent in intention, has negative "unforeseen" consequences that undermine the law's initial premise and make things worse, paving the way for more and more regulation. You seem focused on antitrust as a possible exception, and perhaps you're right - but on second thought (http://www.mises.org/store/Antitrust-and-Monopoly-Anatomy-of-a-Policy-Failure-P296.aspx), maybe it's not so clear-cut (http://www.mises.org/store/Antitrust-The-Case-for-Repeal-P10C0.aspx?AFID=3). In any case, the vast majority of regulations are not antitrust regulations anyway, and almost all other types of regulations will very visibly impede competition, increase the cost of doing business, and raise market entry barriers. This is because it not only costs money to comply, but it also costs money to afford the legal work to make sure you're complying, prove to the government you're complying, etc. In the real world, this is just one more factor that prevents more competition from being able to rise up and challenge dominant corporations, create new useful jobs, and increase our productive capacity and overall wealth.

The interesting thing is, the biggest corporations often recognize this...and that's why you don't see laissez-faire libertarians promoted by the corporate media. Considering how good the establishment is at using the media to manipulate public opinion, do you really think Fox News couldn't bring the Bush voters over to laissez-faire capitalistic thinking if its owners and sponsors really wanted to do so? Of course they could! If they wanted to, and if it would really benefit them in the way you suggest, the world's largest conglomerates could and would easily shove free market views down our throats. The reason they don't, and the reason that true free market viewpoints and advocates are so unpopular and given pretty much zero media attention, is simply this: On the whole, having no regulations would be much better for us and much worse for large corporations (and controlling media interests) than our current system of arbitrary interventionism. Hell, without regulations, corporate personhood would not even exist. This is also why the biggest corporations actually want to be regulated up to a point. That stopping point is where current regulations are enough to ensure their continued dominance and lock out competition, and any added on top of that would just cut into their profits...and that's where we run into the problem that many regulations are actually malevolent, not benevolent in the first place.

Besides, any and all business regulation at the federal level is unconstitutional. An honest reading of the interstate commerce clause only gives the federal government the power to prevent states from conducting trade wars with each other by erecting interstate tariffs and things like that. Unless we amend the Constitution to allow very specific, enumerated, limited types of government regulation, any federal regulation is in contravention of the supreme law of the land. By simply ignoring this fact and giving Congress the arbitrary power to "use its discretion," as we do today, we're not limiting ourselves to well-intentioned and useful legislation that doesn't backfire: By allowing any arbitrary regulations, we're allowing ALL of them, including the horrendously short-sighted ones and the deliberately malevolent ones.

All in all, we'd be much better off without any regulation at all...and if there are truly any regulations that are all that important and necessary, could they not be handled at the state level, giving people the opportunity to vote with their feet? (You might ask how state-level antitrust laws would work: They'd work by a state simply not allowing a company to do business in its state unless it complied with its rulings.)

Two caveats:
For the record, I would not consider laws against fraud to be regulations: Fraud involves breaking unwritten (or even written) contracts, and laws against it have been well-established in common "don't kill your neighbor" law for ages. Besides, even fraud is best dealt with at a statewide or local level, except when the fraud crosses state lines and for some reason the victim's court cannot be used.

Also, copyrights and patents could be considered regulations, and they are indeed authorized by the Constitution (so long as they are "limited," a restriction which Congress's constant extension of copyright terms clearly undermines). These deserve a discussion all to themselves, and they definitely have a place in law, although "intellectual property" is not the same thing as real property...they're very odd exceptions to the rule, since they alone fall into a category of law that is not entirely about protecting people's natural rights, yet it's not entirely not about that, either. In any case, these laws can go too far, as they very much have in our country. Furthermore, because they are government-created restrictions on who may create or copy certain works, they can be abused to create and maintain monopolies or near monopolies. If anything, the best "antitrust strategy" against such monopolies is to simply allow the government to revoke the exclusive copyright and patent privileges that the government gave to them (by taking away from everyone else) in the first place.

AJ Antimony
10-01-2008, 03:15 PM
^ genius, and +1776