Regulation is Not a Bad Word

When I was growing up as a young Republican dork, I was told that "regulation" was a bad word. Sensible people were for less government regulation. Socialists were for more government regulation because they liked big government controlling the markets and your life. And most of all they loved red tape that inhibited business.

And to this day, I still shudder when I hear the word "regulation." It sounds so nasty and socialist. That's the power of brainwashing.

Here's the only problem - it turns out you totally and completely need regulation. Without government regulation, the excesses of the market go unchecked and we constantly have financial meltdowns. Kind of like ... now.

Of course, the right answer is balance. Too much government regulation does slow down business and get to a point where it inhibits growth. Too little regulation means there is no one to watch over the excessive risks that corporations take for short-term profit and we have economic collapses that are then dumped on the American taxpayer.

Complete deregulation is an intellectually indefensible position. It is also the current Republican platform. We have been trained, and yes even brainwashed, into believing that the government is a bad thing and the less you have of it, the better. That is until of course your house is burning down, then all of a sudden government help - in the form of the fire department - seems like a pretty good idea.

The reason we have government is because it serves a role that we need in society. Police, fire department, public education, common defense and financial regulation of the markets. If you don't have a check on insider trading, the rich get richer and the average guy gets screwed. So, you need the cops of Wall Street. But this isn't just the Securities and Exchange Commission. It is every regulatory agency that watches over the financial industry to protect the interests of all of us.

Even Adam Smith realized the need for government regulation. And it is a perverse situation we find ourselves in that I even have to make the case for such fundamental and obvious points. But yet, here is the campaign for one of the major party candidates for president hiring as their top economic adviser the man who embodies this bloodlust for limitless deregulation. This is probably the one person who best represents all that is wrong with radical deregulation. His name is Phil Gramm.

If you liked Enron, you'll love Phil Gramm. And you'll also love his wife, who helped to deregulate the energy industry which Enron took advantage of, before they collapsed - and then got paid millions for it from ... Enron!

The Gramm family has been deregulating America at a furious pace and getting paid handsomely in the forms of legal bribes from the likes of Enron and Swiss Bank (let alone the millions contributed to Phil Gramm's campaigns through all of the top banks throughout the decades). David Corn has a must read article about this financial merry-go-round that you can look at here. Everyone gets paid and then when they run out of money, they stick us with the bill.

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.

Democrats musts insist on further regulation if they are going to agree to bailing out all these companies and institutions. No more free rides on our dime. Republicans claim to care about your taxpayer dollars and then they shovel it over to their corporate friends. There's nothing wrong with corporations. I'm a die hard capitalist. But in capitalism corporations need the help of the government in regulating a balanced playing field so no one abuses the system. That kind of regulation doesn't hurt corporations, it helps them.

You know what hurts corporations - laissez faire economics with unlimited deregulation. Enron lobbied for deregulation - and then it cost them their company. Phil Gramm's Swiss Bank wanted deregulation and then they lost $37 billion in the ensuing financial meltdown. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

Finally, the idea of putting Phil Gramm, and his acolyte John McCain, in the Oval Office to reek destruction on our economy again is a frightening thought. Imagine the damage they could do with four more years. If you like the economic meltdown we're in the middle of, then you'll love the McCain presidency. These guys are the financial equivalent of the neocons. They are financial radicals who have taken over the system. The idea of putting them back in charge is absolutely unthinkable.

It is the job of the press to let the public know what the realities are. Enron didn't happen out of nowhere. Bear Stearns didn't go down for no reason. There were real reasons behind the downfall of these companies and the meltdown of the markets. There were real actions taken by real people that led to this disaster. One of the primary culprits was Phil Gramm. If the American people knew that, they might not be so ready to put his pupil in the Oval Office. In fact, they'd be crazy to do that. But if they don't know that because the press never told them ...

Watch The Young Turks Here

< Charles Schumer--Big Idiot or the Biggest? | Incredibly Inexpensive Ads on XM Radio >
 Display:
You need regulation to protect the people from one and another, protect people from companies, protect companies from other companies and yes in some cases protect companies from the people

The regulations FDR put in place gave you a middle class, without it you would still have rampent poverty which we saw in 1905, where "capitalists" (aka the very rich) were doing splendig, all the rest were standing in a food line.

Do away with regulation that's absolulete, not working or just plain wrong, but keep and refine the regulation that works.

a great quote from The West Wing (a series that every American should see at least once, think I've seen every episode 5 times by now:-) :
"we have to say what we feel, that government, no matter what it's failures in the past and in times to come for that matter, government can be a place where people come together and where no one gets left behind. No one... gets left behind. An instrument of good"
work towards that goal, step 1 make campaign donations by companies illegal (it's called bribery), step 2 make the government affraid of the people, something that is so not the case in the US

by callisto on 07/15/2008 05:51:38 PM EST

Fantastic post Cenk. Thank you for another educational read.

Boones

by boones on 07/15/2008 05:59:03 PM EST

I knew deep down Cenk was a socialist! 

Anyone who wants even the tiniest bit of regulation MUST be a socialist who wants the government to run everything.

by Tom Hanc on 07/15/2008 07:02:52 PM EST

yeah he's no better than those socialists in Scandinavia and Spain :) those countries are down the drain :)

by callisto on 07/15/2008 07:44:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Those people pay what, 50-60% plus in taxes? No one has any incentive to make more money so they're all lazy and everything is going down the tubes.

;)

by Tom Hanc on 07/15/2008 07:53:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
first number is corporate and second is individual

Spain 30% 24-43%
Norway 28% 28-51.3%
Sweden 28% 0-56%
Denmark 24% 38-59%
Finland 26% 8.5-31.5%

remember is sliding scale, so highest number are only for the very rich

from http://www.worldwide-tax.co m

yeah, lazy bastards, they only need one job, so FDR like :)

by callisto on 07/15/2008 08:13:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thom Hartmann aired his show from Copenhagen(sp) Denmark the other week. It sounds like they've got a lot of good things going on there.

I think we could learn a lot from these progressive countries. That doesn't mean we copy them exactly, but it should mean we borrow some ideas.

If nothing else the biggest no-brainer of all time is to make health care and education as cheap as possible (if not free). And that includes post-secondary education and vocational training for those who can't attend or aren't interested in college.

A healthy, educated society is a more productive, creative and friendly society (i.e. less crime). That's a win-win for everyone, even the greedy rich pricks who resent paying more taxes out of a short-sighted greed instinct.

by Tom Hanc on 07/15/2008 08:49:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Great point, nobody has it down 100% correct and even if they did, you need to keep adapting, because society keeps evolving.

You don't copy their ideas exactly, you borrow good ideas and adopt hem so they work for you, because the parameters are different from place to place.

You have no idea how much Europeans do refer to the US, not only for bad policies, but for good policies and they don't see it as a contradiction. Some countries are good at that, others at something else, you just take as many good ideas as you can find and try to implement them at home.

by callisto on 07/15/2008 09:14:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
In Europe, right?

It's always interesting to get a different perspective.

by Tom Hanc on 07/15/2008 09:19:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'd like to see Cenk have more foreign guests on, to have them compare their country to the US in terms of domestic/economic/tax policy/healthcare (pros and cons, etc.).

I can't recall the last time he did that?  I'm sure a lot of other people would find segments like that to be very interesting.

by Tom Hanc on 07/15/2008 09:23:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
would be great indeed, especially to debunk all the false assumptions many Americans have about foreign countries or systems.

I see how even most of the reporters just take over Repug talking points and state them as fact.

by callisto on 07/15/2008 10:45:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Currently Prague, but if the dollar keeps dropping, I'm moving to Manhattan.

by callisto on 07/15/2008 10:41:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
By the way, Manhattan is the most expensive place to live in the US according to the last numbers I saw.

But you probably knew that which makes your joke funnier.

by Tom Hanc on 07/15/2008 11:45:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
actually... I wasn't joking, which tells you how down the dollar is.

I get mostly paid in dollars and getting sick of loosing so much in conversion.

looking at some places online and same price per m² isn't there yet compared to Prague, almost, but Manhattan is already cheaper than Barçelona

not the only one who's saying it BTW, many expats here are forced to move back and people who are earning dollars like me are thinking the same thing: NY

by callisto on 07/16/2008 04:27:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Ever read Catch-22?

That is about all I think about when I think about Scandanavia

by ProfRich on 07/15/2008 11:52:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
with the book and the phrase but no, I've never read it.

I've got an enormous back-log of books I should read but haven't (and might not, we'll see).

by Tom Hanc on 07/15/2008 11:55:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]

One of the characters is obsessed with running away from the war (WWII) and going to Sweden where he could have all the illegitimate children he wanted with beautiful tall, blond nordic women and the state would support the kids and even pay for their college.

It was his version of heaven.

by ProfRich on 07/16/2008 12:03:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Something about that sounds very Vonnegut to me. Maybe it was the way you described it.

My favorite book is either My Life As A Man by Phillip Roth or Deadeye Dick by Kurt Vonnegut.

And my favorite short story is The Mysterious Stranger by Mark Twain (a must read).

by Tom Hanc on 07/16/2008 12:25:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Heller is very similar to Vonnegut in his tone and humor.  Unfortunatly, unlike Vonnegut (who wrote a number of good novels), Hellers other work went down hill after catch-22. 

by alphasigmookie on 07/16/2008 01:50:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Having read quite a bit of both, I have always regarded Vonnegut as more inspired by Heller than the other way around.  I know Vonnegut published two novels before Catch-22(1961) appeared (at least in its entirety, he published just one before Catch-22 was serialized) but his style would not really come into shape until Cat's Cradle (1963) which immediately followed Catch-22 (Heller's first novel).  Slaughterhouse Five (1969) would be six years later and has obvious similarities to Catch-22.

I maybe dead wrong and giving Heller too much credit here but that was always the impression that I got.  One thing I know is they were friends.  When Heller died, Vonnegut exclaimed

"Oh, God, how terrible. This is a calamity for American letters."

As for Heller's other stuff, I really like Picture This a lot. Heller's other novels were actually often good they just never lived up to Catch-22.  Heller explained this when a reporter asked him why he hadn't written anything else that good.  "Who has?", he replied.  I think he was right.

by ProfRich on 07/16/2008 02:27:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Vonnegut also wrote short stories and sci-fi stuff for various magazines and papers before (and after) he hit it big.

by Tom Hanc on 07/16/2008 11:21:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]

And, of course, Heller had no element of Sci-fi.  I think what I see similar in the two is irrelevant to genre.  They both tore up chronology, treated the absurd as if it made perfect sense and wrote characters who felt powerless but were really had a good deal of control over their world.

by ProfRich on 07/16/2008 11:44:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The Economy is in real trouble. The Grand Oil Privateers want a good old fashioned socialist bail out with our tax dollars. Remember their mantra “Privatize the profits. Socialize the losses”

by army193 on 07/15/2008 09:00:13 PM EST

It's exactly right.

by Tom Hanc on 07/15/2008 09:20:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Lots of current corporate bad behavior is covered by current regulation, but they forge ahead anyway since they know the admin won't enforce the regs. I'm all for regulation, but what I'm all-in for is enforcement! If you're serious on enforcement you could get by with lighter regulation. Theodore Roosevelt said "Walk softly and carry a big stick".

Sounds similar also to regulation of the government itself. We have regulations in place (constitution) that the fat cats  are ignoring (Bush/Cheney) since they know those supposed to enforce it (congress) won't and thus there won't be any punishment (impeached).

But wait a sec, did I hear that Nanci Pelosi grew a set of "nuts" (nuts, nuts, nuts...take that Jesse) this week and might turn Conyers loose? Got my fingers crossed and praying into my bowl of noodly god-ness.

by rolodex on 07/16/2008 01:39:55 AM EST

Congress does not enforce regulations.  They don't really enforce anything (with very few exceptions).

Here is a simple guide:

Legislative Branch- Make Laws

Executive Branch- Enforce Laws (which includes regulations)

Judicial Branch- Interpret Laws

Congress may suck right now but let's not blame them for not doing a job they have no authority to do.

by ProfRich on 07/16/2008 02:13:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]

In the situation alluded to, the one way congress has enforcement ability, is through the power of impeachment.

That is how they ensure that the President follows the constitution and enforces the laws that congress passes.

The people have enforcement power through the vote, the congress through impeachment.

Remember that the impeachment powers also extend over the judiciary, where the people usually don't have the power of the vote.

It can not be over stated the importance of the power of impeachment.

Not to get sidetracked from the original topic of regulation too much, I just wanted to point out the importance of enforcement to successful regulation, and the parallel of constitutional enforcement to successful government. If you don't maintain enforcement all the way to the top, be it Ken Lay or George Bush, then all the regulations (or constitutional provisions) in the world won't help you.

by rolodex on 07/16/2008 12:48:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
on the enforcement

it's beyond any reason how Bushco has made a ton of agencies NOT enforce the things they're supposed to enforce

by callisto on 07/16/2008 04:33:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What they've done is simply but their little bitches in charge of the regulatory agencies.  Look at how the supreme court had to issue a ruling recently telling EPA that they have an obligation to enforce air quality standards.  I mean, Goddamn, does it get any more obvious than that?

by bfaul on 07/16/2008 10:52:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: