Obamacare

Obama Isn't Fooling Anyone

The president is no deregulator

|

President Barack Obama penned a witty Wall Street Journal op-ed this week, titled "Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System."

In it, he extolled the virtues of a free market system. And to prove that his admiration of capitalism has nothing to do with naked political expediency, Obama signed an executive order that will "root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb."

Sounds rather subjective, though, don't you think? How do we gauge excessive regulation in the Age of Obama? I can't recall a single federal program, piece of legislation, or proposal in the past two years that was initiated to ease the burden on consumers or businesses. (If you know of any, please send specifics to sorry@dowelooklikesuckers.com.)

Obama doesn't have to look far, if he's serious. Nor does he need an executive order. Right now, the Environmental Protection Agency is drafting carbon rules to force on states, even though a similarly torturous 2,000 pages on a cap-and-trade scheme intending to make power more expensive was rejected. Maybe there's something in that pile of paper to mine.

Also, the Federal Communications Commission is shoving network neutrality in the pipeline—again, bypassing Congress—so government can regulate the Internet for the first time in history, though the commissioners themselves admit that as of now, any need for rules are based on the what-ifs of their imaginations.

There exists no legislation more burdensome and expensive than the job-crushing (not "job-killing," because, naturally, we can't stand for that kind of imagery) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, formerly known as ObamaCare and presently being symbolically repealed by House Republicans.

That's for starters.

But, of course, there will be no tangible regulatory relief. The Federal Register is a codex of moral well-being, after all. Regulatory schemes are how we make life fairer, the sick healthy, the economy recession-proof, and green energy a reality. It's how we stop the rich from acting selfishly and the weak from stuffing fat kids with Sno Balls.

Last May, a New York Times story, "With Obama, Regulations Are Back in Fashion," laid out how the administration had "pressed forward on hundreds of new mandates." In it, we have what seems like half the White House championing the pettiest of regulations as an ethical imperative.

Our bureaucratic agencies have nearly infinite power to do good via rule-making—once they are in, that is. Keep in mind that the rule allowing "end-of-life" counseling paid for by Medicare was inserted into ObamaCare after passage and only nixed after an ensuing outcry.

It, like thousands of other additions, will return.

A Small Business Administration study says total regulatory costs that businesses (and thus consumers) pay amount to about $1.75 trillion—more than all collected personal income taxes. The Competitive Enterprise Institute found in this past year that the appearance of new rules—including "major" rules that cost more than $100 million annually—had dramatically accelerated.

Which isn't surprising.

When Obama was in a place of political comfort, the free market was a place of unhinged self-interest, unfairness, and misery. Nearly all of our troubles were portrayed as a case of regulatory neglect—and nearly every dilemma was met accordingly.

Nothing's changed but the political conditions.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his website at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Federal Judge Says There's No First Amendment Right to Record the Cops

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There exists no problem in the universe that this president believes does not have a government-based solution. The idea that any regulation would be done away with – even the redundant ones – is ludicrous.

    (Also, I tried emailing to that address and it got bounced back. Can you doublecheck that you’ve typed it correctly?)

    1. Government is his god and the Federal Register is his scripture.

      To say he’s going to repeal regulation is like saying the Pope is going to rip pages out of the Bible.

      Anyone who believes him is a fool.

      1. Try the Catechism.

        Catholics place no more faith in the Bible than they do the Bhagavad Gita.

  2. I seem to recall that Congress handing off rule making to the Executive branch started with the war on drugs under Nixon. Thus Congress didn’t make marijuana illegal per se, they set the Schedules and told the DEA to decide to which category a drug belongs.

    And I also recall some folks saying this was a problem. Because Congress was delegating it legislative power to the Executive. Most likely unconstitutional, and concentrating too much power in the Executive which would inevitably lead to problems when an agency can write the very rules (laws) they are charged to enforce.

    And now it’s all come true.

    1. I’d say the handing off power started back further than that.

      Try FDR’s “New Deal”

      1. (smacks forehead) well yes you are right. and the inevitable consequence was also foreseen. either way, it’s come true.

  3. That photo freaked me out….for just a second I thought “Black Dynamite” was here!

    1. My momma said that my daddy’s name is Black Dynamite!

      1. Well I’m sure she had a lovely time then.

    2. It looked to me like he was doing his Bruce Lee imitation.

      Except his Fist of Fury is really a Fistul of Fail…

  4. He’s the driver in the Green Hornet movie?

  5. Hey, what’s the deal? Why isn’t the last sentence on a second page?

  6. Obama Isn’t Fooling Anyone.

    Sure he is…how did he get to be President? He is still fooling most people.

    1. What is he trying to fool? He’s clearly stated his intentions. The only problem you are having is the media obfuscates any statement he makes by bringing up irrelevant pablum.

  7. “How about instead of throwing this into Mount Doom, I simply wield it for, um, hope and change?”

  8. Obama Isn’t Fooling Anyone

    There are *plenty* of people he is fooling.

    1. There are *plenty* of people he is fooling.

      There seems to be a lot of people who *want* to be fooled. It makes it easy.

  9. Obama’s blather is just another con job.

    That has been his tactic from the beginning.

    Actually govern as far left as possible while talking as if he’s some sort of “pragmatic centrist”

    1. Team Blue is not “the left”.

  10. The Bushies did seriously neglect regulation… because they lived by the same childish dogma you guys do, namely, government = bad!

    We’ve had a financial meltdown, a coal mine disaster, and a massive oil leak, just to name a few things, to hit us over the head with this reality. But what does evidence matter when you’re right by definition, which is how dogmas work?

    1. and yet, none of those resulted from deregulation or “not enough regulation”

      1. Of course not.

        1. Tony I accidentally responded below…most of what you say is ill researched and easily refutable. Blaming the financial meltdown on deregulation is a myth that has been shot down time and time again. Why do you continue to spout nonsense?

          1. So all those instances of deregulation you cited below, what was that for? Don’t get me wrong, the Clinton government is certainly not blameless.

            My point is not to assign blame to a person or political party, but to the laissez-faire dogma that has been so prominent in our policymaking over the last few decades. And it doesn’t matter whether actual deregulation was going on. To me, the fact that these things were preventable (rather than being freak accidents), means regulation wasn’t adequate.

            1. …to the laissez-faire dogma that has been so prominent in our policymaking over the last few decades.

              You’re dreaming.

            2. “the laissez-faire dogma that has been so prominent in our policymaking over the last few decades.”
              Liar.

              1. Guess it’s a matter of perspective. As you are idealists, I suppose that since we weren’t operating under perfect libertarian conditions, libertarianism isn’t responsible for anything.

                1. Tony|1.19.11 @ 4:45PM|#
                  “Guess it’s a matter of perspective…”

                  No, it isn’t. It has nothing to do with “perspective”; it has to do with honesty, and you have none. Laissez-faire has a specific meaning, and you are bright enough to know it.
                  You’re lying scum. That’s what it has to do with.

                  1. It’s like Ronald Reagan, Alan Greenspan, and the Republican party never existed.

            3. To me, the fact that these things were preventable (rather than being freak accidents), means regulation wasn’t adequate.

              Let’s look at Deepwater Horizon, which you mention specifically. There were regulations in place. For instance, regulations required that the drilling not be done near to the coastline to prevent environmental destruction. So the drilling had to take place in deep water, increasing the risk. In a very real sense, the regulation led to the destruction. Let’s not forget that the drilling operation was scrutinized by regulators, who failed to notice all of the safety violations taking place. In such case, what did regulation even accomplish?

              You could argue that we could add further regulations – add the Gulf of Mexico to the list of places the U.S. prohibits drilling. Such regulations would lead oil companies to start drilling in deep ocean areas not under U.S. control (sovereignty over coastal waters only extends ~10 miles off the coastline). Then what?

              You seem to cling to this notion that the mere presence of regulation keeps what you term “preventable” things from happening. To believe this requires that you ignore the fact that regulators are often completely incompetent and serve as nothing more than sycophants willing to sign off on anything handed to them. You also ignore the fact that regulation leads to unintended, often worse, consequences than the things it was meant to prevent.

              I’ve only mentioned Deepwater Horizon as an example of the failure of your regulatory regime. I’m sure there are others here who might be willing to bring to light the regulatory failures which led to all of the other things you mention.

          2. ” Why do you continue to spout nonsense?”

            Because he’s a troll.

            And that’s what trolls do.

    2. The Bushies did seriously neglect regulation

      By neglect I take it you mean “didn’t regulate everything in sight,” because we all know Bush significantly increased the amount of regulation on the books and the cost and only a liar or an idiot would say otherwise.

      1. Mr Simple, Tony merely repeats what he hears on msnbc. He is a hack liberal, he speaks in vague terms but has no actual “evidence”. He speaks about Bush deregulation but doesn’t actually name any Bush deregulations. Credit Default Swaps came about in the 90’s, Glass Steagell was the 90’s, The Banking Act was the 1970’s….not that it had anything to do with the financial meltdown but those major pieces of bank deregulation came about before Bush. If people were fined for saying things on the internet that could be proven false, Tony would be broke by now. It is a shame there is no penalty for spreading misinformation because if there was, Tony might stop spewing his nonsense. I almost think he is actually a conservative posing as a liberal just to make liberals look bad because his views are textbook generic left wing memes.

        1. Out of curiosity, what do you think caused the financial crisis?

          1. Government interference caused distortions in the markets, duh. The interference in the money supply and interest rates were the biggest problem. This was all made worse, of course, when the government tried to stop the markets from correcting themselves and created significant uncertainty, which causes players not to act, making the downturn harder and longer than it needs to be.

            1. Actually, the lion’s share of the blame falls on the banks when they were taking loans from people who could never pay them back, lumping those toxic assets together into “securities”, passing them off as sound investment and selling them for far more than they were actually worth. When the debtors naturally defaulted on their loans, the securities people had bought for high sums of money suddenly became worthless. Now don’t get me wrong, I think government policy might have exacerbated the problem. But the initial drop was on the banks. The regulation is mostly unnecessary. Only one major regulation is necessary: If a bank is going to give someone a loan, they need to make dang sure that that person can pay it back!

              1. Or the government can get rid of Fannie/Freddie and stop “encouraging” the banks to loan money unlikely to pay back.

              2. “Actually, the lion’s share of the blame falls on the banks when they were taking loans from people who could never pay them back, lumping those toxic assets together into “securities”, passing them off as sound investment and selling them for far more than they were actually worth.”

                Actually the lions share falls on the federal reserve bank for pumping up the money supply and creating the asset bubble in real estate.

                Second prize goes to Fannie and Fredddie and all it’s enablers and apologists in Congress for lowering it’s standards for the loans it would buy and securitize. Those entities were buying a lot of those bad loans – loans that never would have been made if the banks weren’t able to offoad them on Fannie or Freddie.

                And then there is the Sarbox mark to market rules that helped freeze the credit msrkets up.

                All the folks in the banks and other financial institutions are below those things in the blame list.

              3. Sanity did you ever wonder why these banks took the loans ? They were starved for yields. Why ? Because the credit markets were fixed by the Fed artificially suppressing interest rates.MORE intervention. We all know what happened after that.

          2. Artificially low interest rates, bad government policy (community reinvestment act), government agencies buying toxic mortgages, bad banking decisions and the publics appetite for easy credit. It happened in Europe too, even with all those wacky regulations.

            1. jelly|1.19.11 @ 5:50PM|#
              “Artificially low interest rates, bad government policy (community reinvestment act), government agencies buying toxic mortgages, bad banking decisions and the publics appetite for easy credit. It happened in Europe too, even with all those wacky regulations.”

              So we now have a first datum to answer the question: “How far can you distort the market before the market bites you in the ass?”
              Answer: Less distortion than what we had.

    3. But what does evidence matter when you’re right by definition, which is how dogmas work?
      reply to this.

      Finally you admit your political and debate method. Thanks T long overdue.

    4. Except that Bush signed more regulations into law than even Clinton. WTF can you really be so ignorant? You are a cheerleader, not a thinker.

    5. So, you disagree with the President’s new alleged deregulatory push? I always knew you were a racist.

    6. government = / = bad
      Unlimited Government = BAD!

      1. Here are a few things from Tony’s pathetic little mind.

        limited government = anarchy

        money = wealth = income

        crony capitalism = free market

        influence = power

        A thinking person knows those things to all be false, but Tony does not think.

        He feels.

        And if he feels that it is true, not amount of facts or logic will change it.

      2. Tony seems to assume that since freedom = bad, government = non-freedom = good.

        In reality, freedom = good, and non-freedom = bad. Government = non-freedom.

    7. You mean the same Dubya who gave us the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, Sarbanes-Oxley, and increased the Federal Register to its largest size in history, neglected regulation?

      Tony, you are, without a doubt, the smartest typing monkey in history.

      1. It’s the Clever Hans effect. He’s just echoing his Master, there is no real intelligence involved.

    8. The Bushies did seriously neglect regulation

      I wish. The average number of “economically significant” regulations (impact over $100 million per year) under Bush was almost identical to the average under Clinton. (47 for Clinton, 48 for Bush.)

  11. “The name is Barack, but my friends all call me Elvis.”

    1. Or…they often call me “Speedo”, but my real name is Mr. Earl.

  12. The Bushies did seriously neglect regulation

    How odd, then, that thousands of pages were added the federal regulations during Bush’s administration.

    We’ve had a financial meltdown, a coal mine disaster, and a massive oil leak,

    All three of which happened in heavily regulated industries.

    Regulations increase. Bad things happen in heavily regulated industries. Obviously, the only solution is more regulation.

    1. Lots of regulations on the books does not equal adequate regulation. I don’t give a shit how many pages of regulations there are if they’re not useful or if they’re not being enforced.

      The examples I cited were each preventable had the industries been adequately regulated. The specific blind spots have all been spelled out.

      1. Everything is “preventable”, doofus. Just don’t do it in the first place. You can’t die if you never live.

        1. A meteorite slamming into the Deepwater Horizon well is not preventable. Lax construction standards as a result of cronyism in the regulatory agency responsible is preventable.

          1. Do you drive like you argue? Cause you better have airbags…

            1. Assume a perfect regulation. Now assume a perfect regulator. Further assume that we can force the real world to be simple enough to be amenable to a command-and-control style regulatory state.

              You will be absorbed. . .your individuality will merge into the unity of good.

              1. Assume a perfect regulation. Now assume a perfect regulator. Further assume that we can force the real world to be simple enough to be amenable to a command-and-control style regulatory state.

                It’s at this point where Tony has his nocturnal emission.

  13. Tony, want regulations did the bushies neglect? Carter and Clinton deregulated more than Bush and they defend their choice of deregulations…and rightly so. Let’s face it Tony, you spew crap and most of it is easily refuted.

    1. The truly pathetic part is that after he has been soundly refuted, and proven wrong with facts and logic, he does not learn a thing.

      This is because he does not think, rather he feels.

      He feels that it is all Bush’s fault, therefor it must be, even if it is not.

      And if it is not, and it is proven not to be, he will still feel that way so in his pathetic animal mind that exists only to justify his emotions it will remain Bush’s fault.

  14. I can’t recall a single federal program, piece of legislation, or proposal in the past two years that was initiated to ease the burden on consumers or businesses.

    Did you read President Obama’s WSJ article, Mr. Harsanyi? In the article, the President provides an example of the sort of regulatory relief that his Administration has initiated:

    “for years, the EPA made companies treat saccharin like other dangerous chemicals. Well, if it goes in your coffee, it is not hazardous waste. The EPA wisely eliminated this rule last month.”

    Wisely. Yes, this is what passes for wisdom at EPA.

    And relaxation of the hazmat classification of sacchrine is what passes for regulatory balance in the Obama Administration (as if disposal of offspec sacchrine was a significant problem in the first place.)

    1. Substitute “flouride” for “saccharine” and “water” for “coffee”. Bet that would change the calculus…

    2. “And relaxation of the hazmat classification of sacchrine is what passes for regulatory balance in the Obama Administration (as if disposal of offspec sacchrine was a significant problem in the first place.)”

      Symbolism over substance.

      It is ever thus.

      1. A quick hop over to wikipedia puts the regulation in context. Saccharine caused cancer in rats and it was only recently that studies found that it didn’t in people. The regulation made sense then, and so does repealing it now.

        Yes, I know that the invisible hand of the free market cures cancer, but until we live in that world, I’m grateful the government is reducing the carcinogens in my water.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Government_regulation

        1. Saccharine causes cancer in rats only in extremely high doses. It probably can cause cancer in people as well if they eat a couple hundred pounds of it each week.

  15. (as if disposal of offspec sacchrine was a significant problem in the first place.)

    Straight into the “Equal” packets. Problem solved.

    1. They could be dumping it straight into coffee without packaging!

  16. Keep in mind that the rule allowing “end-of-life” counseling paid for by Medicare was inserted into ObamaCare after passage and only nixed after an ensuing outcry.

    This one actually one of the few cost saving measures in the bill, and one which would have empowered seniors to make their own end of life decisions.

    What is conspicuously absent from all of these, “Obama is a big jerk” articles is an actual solution to any problem we are currently facing. Its pretty freaking pathetic.

    Even on a libertarian website, where presumably entitlements are anathema, the author lacks the courage to say that we should abolish Medicare, SS, even welfare. There isn’t a single identified regulation that is so onerous as to be abolished immediately. In fact, sadly, the only concrete example of deregulation on this entire page is in a quote from Obama’s editorial.

    Its really no wonder Libertarians are losing the battle of ideas, you actually have to put some forward.

    1. What is conspicuously absent from all of these, “Obama is a big jerk” articles is an actual solution to any problem we are currently facing.

      The causes of the problems with the health care system have been identified many times on these pages. The solutions are implicit in the description of the causes. Namely, treat the health insurance market like it’s actually insurance that’s being sold. The whole point of insurance is to pool resources in anticipation of a low probability, high cost event like cancer treatments or whatever. Covering foreseeable treatments like immunizations, etc. drives up costs. Remove the link between employer and health insurance plan. As there is a lot of government regulation and history involved in this (government is at least partially responsible for the rise of employer-provided plans), there seems to be a long list of things to do.

      Even on a libertarian website, where presumably entitlements are anathema, the author lacks the courage to say that we should abolish Medicare, SS, even welfare.

      Here you go. We should abolish Medicare, Social Security, and all welfare programs. The details are where it gets murky. Here’s an attempt:

      Start by raising the minimum age for SS and Medicare. This is required no matter what, as the population lives significantly longer than in years past, yet collects benefits at the same age. Grandfather in people under the minimum age already receiving benefits. Slowly raise the minimum age every few years (on a previously defined schedule), reducing the number of people on benefits. Over time, the problem is abated. This will obviously take one or two decades, but a slow, continual response is required to fix decades-long mistakes. As far as welfare goes, get rid of programs to the poor which create dependency on government. Eliminate minimum wage laws which mainly have the effect of pricing the lower class out of jobs. Allow private charities to take over.

      There. It’s been said explicitly. Satisfied?

      1. Eliminate minimum wage laws which mainly have the effect of pricing the lower class [less skilled and/or unexperienced workers] out of jobs.

        FTFY

        1. Eliminate minimum wage laws which mainly have the effect of pricing the lower class [less skilled and/or unexperienced [inexperienced] workers] out of jobs.

          FTFY

          FTFM

  17. I think your first paragraph is spot on. The connection between insurance and your employer is rediculous and restricts the freedom for people to switch jobs. Eliminating the tax breaks for employee provided insurance would be a nice start. The same with using insurance to catastrophic events instead of everyday visitations, though how you are going to encourage that without government intervention is a mystery to me.

    As a card carrying liberal socialist I of course disagree with your second paragraph. The reason those programs are in place is because the private sector failed to provide society with a standard of living which we found acceptable. The same with most of the “excessive regulation” so quickly villainized by those on the right. I do think it is time to compromise – people are living longer and there are those who would live on the govt. dole instead of being productive. Raising the SS age to 67-68 and creating a declining return on unemployment benefits would in my mind be a reasonable compromise that would ideologically acceptable to both sides and would help get our fiscal house in order.

    Thanks for responding, I would rather read about policy than why Palin/Obama/whoever is a douche.

  18. The reason those programs are in place is because the private sector failed to provide society with a standard of living which we found acceptable.

    First off, let’s not pretend that Social Security was enacted with any sort of popular support. It was pushed through during the New Deal by the nearly unilateral action of FDR. So “we” certainly didn’t decide anything. In addition, it really didn’t do anything to address true income inequality in this country, as it originally precluded membership by African-Americans, women, etc. It was basically enacted as a means of transferring money to old white people, a group who were hit pretty hard by the Great Depression and who also voted in great numbers for FDR.

    What do you mean by “standard of living”? There should be no doubt that the rapid growth of private American companies through the early part of the 20th century increased the incomes and purchasing ability of millions. It’s pretty much the greatest story of prosperity in human history. If you mean that income inequality increased during this period, I would argue that this is a ridiculous metric to begin with. Imagine a society in which the upper 10% make $1 million, 100 times that of the lower 10% at $10000. In this case, the income gap is $990000. Now imagine that, all else equal, everyone’s (real, inflation-adjusted) incomes doubled. The income gap has become $1980000. It has doubled in terms of real dollars. So there’s more income inequality. Yet both the rich and the poor are able to purchase more than they could before. Prosperity has increased, but an income inequality metric would suggest things have gotten worse. This is ridiculous. My thought experiment here isn’t that crazy. It’s basically what free enterprise has done anywhere it’s been allowed to exist. Someone comes up with a method, technology, etc. that allows the rest of us to live an easier, more comfortable, satisfying life. Yet we condemn the fact that, in some cases, the rich might get more out of this. Don’t forget that the poor get something out of it. And that, without the private market, such a thing would never have existed.

    While Social Security and Medicare enough from young, productive workers to cover the old and unproductive, it was limited in the damage it could do. Now, as we move into a period in which the old and unproductive are becoming too numerous for the young and productive to help, there is really no way out. Changing the age to 67-68 will do nothing to negate the fact that there is no money in these programs. I read some calculations (can’t remember where…sorry) that showed that raising the retirement age to 70 wouldn’t do it. Social Security and Medicare represent nothing less than the greatest failures of social engineering in American history. It’s time to put it to rest.

  19. Joseph Stiglitz: Private Financial Sector wastes more money than Government (Tavis Smiley interview) Vid link: http://is.gd/iRtGp

    also

    “Wall Street’s “free-market” planning has hollowed out the economy. Dismantling public regulation has been supported by the economic theory taught in almost every university. This is the junk-economic theory that has been getting Nobel prizes for free trade and open capital markets for the last thirty-two years. It is as bankrupt as the banking system…The vast majority of these prizes have been given to Chicago School economists who are in effect shills for the financial sector. When these “useful idiots” use complex math to oppose a role for government planning, they overlooked what you and I have talked about on this show before: Every economy is planned by some party or other . . . If the government doesn’t do the key planning, if it withdraws as society’s long-term planner, then the role is left to Wall Street…But reformers are up against Chicago School economists who have been endorsed because their anti-government theories are so self-serving to economic groups that don’t want to be regulated at all. The important thing is that “free enterprise” has only been able to be imposed at gunpoint. In fact, as Milton Friedman himself observed, only a socialist government can impose his kind of economics, without sunk costs, with “pure” markets…To work properly, everyone who doesn’t believe in free enterprise has to be isolated, which means in practice that free enterprise only works in a police state. The moral is that free enterprise economics only works when you have authoritarian control to suppress opposition seeking to place economic relations in a broader social context…Economists who call themselves free enterprise actually are defenders of the financial industry and the sacrifice of economies to pay their debts, regardless of how wastefully these have been entered into… their idea of the market means that the “market” should adjust itself to debt claims growing exponentially, in excess of the economy’s ability to pay. The consequence is a transfer of property.” ~ Michael Hudson, Ph.D. UMKC

    also

    William Black on regulation (at about 2:35:00) at CSPAN Oct. 28, 2009
    http://cs.pn/fJdVz9
    House Committee Oversight and Government Reform
    EXECUTIVE PAY AND TRAP-FUNDED COMPANIES

    “If you leave it to private structures we know empirically what they will do and that they have done for 35 years, they will systematically misalign the incentives to produce precisely this disaster, which again did not arise because of government bailouts; there were no government bailouts of Enron, WorldCom. There were no government bailouts for Drexel Burnham Lambert which was the big investment banking firm before this, right, should under the theory we heard, private market discipline so have been very effective because there were no bailouts-it was completely ineffective, it was completely ineffective this time again, right! If you rely on private market discipline, you will be back here and the only question is whether it is 3 years or 5 years from now, with a bigger disaster on your hands.”

    further from William Black alternate interviews:

    “Neoclassical economists don’t believe that fraud can exist. I mean, they just flat out — the leading textbook in corporate law from law and economics perspective by Easterbrook and Fischel, says — I’ll get pretty close to exact quotation. “A rule against fraud is neither necessary nor particularly important.” Notice how extreme that statement is. We don’t need laws. We don’t need an FBI. We don’t need a justice department. We don’t even need rules like the SEC. The markets cleanse themselves automatically and prevent all frauds. This is a spectacularly na?ve thing.” William K. Black UMKC
    “And this ideology that both parties are dominated by that says, “No, big corporations wouldn’t cheat. Fraud can’t happen. Market’s automatically excluded,” is insane. We now have the entitlement generation as CEOs. They just plain feel entitled to being wealthy as Croesus with no responsibility, no accountability. They have become literal sociopaths. So one of the things is, you clean up business schools, which right now are fraud factories at the senior levels, right? They create the new monsters that take control and destroy massive enterprises and cause global economic crises, cause the great recession.” ~ William K. Black

    finis

  20. This plan has no merit

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.