[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What bad situation? If the bailouts were restorative, than all they did was restore us to a position that the next crisis can be bailed out. Never mind that a bad private sector credit situation was transferred or transformed into a bad Federal Government credit situation. But, I guess we've learned that Federal debt is irrelevant.

If anything it was a stopgap measure. I agree though, the banks should have had more responsibility to the taxpayers aside from just paying back the loans.

Federal regulations can be positive when they regulate Constitutionally derived legislation. When Federal regulations intrude on State or local power, or on individual rights, they grow the power of Central Government and diminish the rest, and they nullify the Constitution. In so doing, if not checked, such regulations also can, eventually, nullify the need of States, or individual rights, and thus create, rather than a federal sysem of government, a centrally administered all powerful government--the administrative State rather than a representative form of government with checks and balances.

I'm sure many Federal regulations you'd probably assert are not Constitutional others would argue in many ways increase our freedoms and are beneficial to business.

By providing a common Federal standard, businesses aren't burdened by a myriad of redundant and unnecessary state regulations. Several medical device customers I work with actually like the fact in the US they only have to deal with the FDA while in the EU there are multiple regulatory agencies. Similarly, another manufacturer I was speaking with this week, who plans expansion into Europe, is faced with the daunting prospect of managing product specifications that will be different in nearly every country...even though the product is essentially identical.

Constitutionality is certainly a required test for all laws, but the idea that everything is black and white only works in a vacuum.

Is this supposed to be a response to my pointing out that some of the Wall Street Occupiers stated that one of their goals was the elimination of capitalism, which was a response to your statement that you didn't think there's really a desire to destroy capitalism? What is the parallel? I said "some" of the occupiers not the entire, rather incoherent, "movement." There was an alleged instance of a supposed Tea Partier spitting on a black man. To say that the Tea Party spits on black people is incredible and has no relation to the discussion.

It was a reference to a focus on a tree rather than a forest.

As far as degrees of "free market" and degrees of "socialism" I prefer greater degrees of free market to greater degrees of socialism--especially since a totally free market as a whole system beyond a single buyer and seller is an extremely ephemeral possibility, as is likewise, a purely and totally socialistic economic form of government given human nature.

I think most Americans prefer a greater degree of free market, though I'd also think most Americans would say that too pure a free market would be inherently destructive.

That being said, I think what we have today in the grand scheme of things, isn't anywhere near being close to a "greater degree of socialism".

Isn't there always some undercurrent of frustation with government. To claim that as a similarity is another duh observation and not instructive as to the intentions of the two movements.

It's relative. When times are good people are more likely to ignore it.

Being relative, then, it's not a point of discussion, so why point it out. Besides, the protesters being angry about the "game" being increasingly rigged is hypocritical, since they want to rig it in their favor.

I wouldn't say they're trying to rig anything in their favor, rather just undo some of the "rigging" that has arguably gotten us off track.

I do agree that our current trajectory is not sustainable. I think one of, if not the main, reason is that our current trajectory is being guided more by central government administrative "experts" rather than innovative entrepeneurs who can think outside the administrative box. If our future political leadership sticks to constitutional governance and lets the market be mostly free and self regulating so that innovaters can operate and profit, the fiscal task will be much less daunting--though daunting will always exist. Without daunting , stagnation creeps in. But if the innovation must come from central planners, and the fiscal issues are government issues, adaptation will stagnate. If we insist on "leading" by government oversight and regulation, we can look forward to leading from behind.

Nobody is asserting that the Government should be the primary innovator to drive the market. The government sets conditions, regulates and for the many decades of Keynesian thinking has also rightly or wrongly tried to keep everything between the lines.

I'm not sure what basis there is for an argument that states minimal or strict behavior always is better. If there was no FDA would the states be able to regulate less effectively or more? There are plenty of examples where deregulation at the federal or state level has not led to any benefit for the consumer or public.

I also don't think to say there's room for interpretation, as long as it's done within the system, is in any way not adhering to the Constitution. Even passionate issues like Roe, where the pure Constitutionality argument is perhaps weaker, are still considered settled by the majority of people and backed by judicial findings.

Ultimately I think issues need to be evaluated in context of reality, where things really sit today and not some purist theoretical world that is the fancy of academics.

-spence