See, I take your point and
@Type Username Here's point. But once again,
this is a bad argument.
respectfully disagree
Number 1, every industry is not the same. Your argument assumes that every deregulated entity is organized exact like financial institutions
how does my argument makes this assumption?
categorically ignore all others and apply it only to the financial markets if you wish. Is my argument validated?
and that we are arguing that regulations themselves are an ineffective method of governance.
I am arguing this notion that you posted, and I quote
what would be the point of implementing regulations when they would be designed to give these institutions greater flexibility and leniency..
I believe I rebuked 1. the fallacy of this idea and 2. the worth of regulations even if your notion was true
You're using a general argument for the efficacy of regulations instead of proving the efficacy of regulations in this specific circumstance.
The specific efficacy of financial regulations is even easier to prove
1. that the crooks needed deregulation proves it
2. what happened after deregulation proves it
3. The prophylaxis from The Crisis that Canada enjoyed proves it
This was my argument and was dead on regarding the financial markets
Tiabbi makes it pretty clear how difficult it is to prosecute one of these cases as is
it is difficult because of deregulations in conjunction with a wholesale purchase of the judiciary and can be made easy through regulation
The markets, the corporate structure, the lobbying system, all of it are our creations, they have no legitimate or supernaturally ordained right to exist at the detriment of the majority, the very idea of which is anti-democratic, they.are.not.even.people.
and
@Futuristic Eskimo demonstrated last week why there are many reasons why the existing corporate structure will be difficult to dismantle and why many actually embrace it.
wasn't there, don't care
So, the argument isn't about the general efficacy of regulations, it is about what type of regulations and enforcement mechanisms will emerge from a judiciary, legislature and legal system that supports many of the tenants of the existing regime...
this is circular reasoning, a circle of which I was never a part of
there is no part of the system that openly promotes the inability of the majority to pursue happiness, that we simply have to accept
you keep presenting these surreptitious externalities, judiciary, legislature and legal system, as supernaturally ordained and immutable to the will or the imagination of the people
Will those regulations be strong enough to dissuade these parties on Wall Street.
depends
remember the ones they lobbied to get rid of
bring those back
I have a feeling they were problematic for the crooks
..current evidence suggests that it may not be. Dodd-Frank has tightened regulations and yet, in some ways, things are more dangerous now than they were before. Forces like Elizabeth Warren aren't exactly having their way, and many of the stronger parts of Dodd-Frank were stripped out due to special interest groups and just because of ideological differences. Even then, if you can bring up a criminal case against someone, government attorneys have a 90+% win rate partially because they don't bring up cases that they do not believe that they can win. Thus, Tiabbi, I and capitalists in the market are saying that the most feasible deterrent in this arena is to remove the government safety blanket.
Unless, you're able to combat Tiabbi's evidence or my points, then you're just making a normative argument that lacks actual consideration of THIS scenario. When you have people like Tiabbi and I considering this alternative, you're going to have to do better than regulations work. Yes, we do believe that regulations work, and we also recognize that the US is not Canada or those European nations and that it will take us much longer to get to those regulations. Don't conflate what we would prefer ideally with what we believe is more likely.
I can summarize everything you just wrote in a simple sentence
"deal with it because the fox is running the hen house"
thanks for the info I guess
you're surprising me with your stance here. I always envisioned you as something of a 'realist', acknowledging that there's no way Obama could have let them fail and run for reelection after the economic fallout that failure would have created.
