I'm neither a Cameron hater nor fanboy, but a while back, I read the New Yorker profile by Dana Goodyear that Tim mentioned, and I strongly recommend reading it. It's a really good study of an interesting character.

Quoting Unit: Ideally, getting rid of regulation would *hurt* the biggest players, because it would toughen 'market discipline'.

In the sense of 'market discipline' that means "market non-existence", sure.

Quoting Ray: In the sense of 'market discipline' that means "market non-existence", sure.

If it doesn't exist maybe there's a good reason, i.e. maybe it shouldn't.

Any diavlog that can make its way here in under an hour is a Win.

Quoting Unit: If it doesn't exist maybe there's a good reason, i.e. maybe it shouldn't.

I agree with you. I'm just not sure that you actually agree with yourself.

Quoting Ray: I agree with you.

I'm just not sure that you actually agree with yourself.

Whatever dude.

Quoting Unit: Whatever dude.

The kind of deregulation that you're talking about--deregulation to the point where new-comers would enjoy something approaching an even playing field with big, established companies--would result in something approaching a late medieval economy, at best. Fine by me, of course. But you?

Quoting Ray: The kind of deregulation that you're talking about--deregulation to the point where new-comers would enjoy something approaching an even playing field with big, established companies--would result in something approaching a late medieval economy, at best.

Fine by me, of course. But you?

I have a hard time following what you say. What does the middle ages have to do with "barriers to entry"? Look, let's not make it too complicated here. My point is simple: Fannie and Freddie facilitated the emergence of markets in derivatives and credit default swaps. Such market might not have been viable without govt intervention. The bubble in the housing market was stoked by govt policies and regulation, the biggest players were too-big-too-fail semi-private institutions with an implicit, that then became explicit, expectation of being ultimately backed by the govt. This is crony capitalism: a mixture of politics and capital that sends prices through the roof. Now they want follow the same model for health-care. The current bill doesn't have any market-oriented reforms, as far as I can tell, but it's very heavy in pro-business reforms (as I mentioned in the earlier post). Pro-market is not the same as pro-business. Businesses usually don't

Quoting Unit: The bubble in the housing market was stoked by govt policies and regulation

No. Wall Street directed the federal government to regulate Wall Street in precisely the way Wall Street liked. The bubble was caused by this purchase of government by Wall Street.

Quoting Unit: the biggest players were too-big-too-fail semi-private institutions with an implicit, that then became explicit, expectation of being ultimately backed by the govt.

No. The biggest players were private institutions who bought explicit government backing.

Quoting Unit: Pro-market is not the same as pro-business.

Indeed.

Quoting Unit: Businesses usually don't like competition and want protection from the govt. If they can get it in exchange for submitting to some regulation, they'll do it.

Almost right. There was no submission. The government applied precisely the sort of regulation that the financial sector wanted, i.e. illusory.

Quoting Unit: There is only one way to get prices in the medical sector to come down: to have people pay for their medical expenses

False. You can also eliminate the insurance industry.

Quoting Unit: So yes the current bill is "medieval", if you want to put it that way.

I don't. I'm merely pointing out that the kind of deregulation you suggest would destroy all financial markets. As well as all health care markets.

Quoting Ray: No. Wall Street directed the federal government to regulate Wall Street in precisely the way Wall Street liked. The bubble was caused by this purchase of government by Wall Street.

It takes two to make a deal: Wall Street bought and Barney Frank et al. sold.

No. The biggest players were private institutions who bought explicit government backing.

Regulators were advising to differentiate risk in exactly the way it was done. Fannie and Freddie continued buying up huge amounts of mortgage securities (even after the Bear Stern debacle). By the way, Fannie was set up by Democrats and Freddie by Republicans. Crony capitalism is color-blind: it doesn't distinguish between red and blue.

Almost right. There was no submission. The government applied precisely the sort of regulation that the financial sector wanted, i.e. illusory.

So regulation failed, as you admit, and you want more?

You can also eliminate the insurance industry.

Who's "you"? I'd don't want to do anything. I don't know if the insurance model is viable or not without propping it up. Do you?

I don't. I'm merely pointing out that the kind of deregulation you suggest would destroy all financial markets. As well as all health care markets.

You're not "pointing out", you're "asserting".

Quoting Unit: It takes two to make a deal: Wall Street bought and Barney Frank et al. sold.

Gosh. Why do you select Frank as your example? Let's ponder.

Quoting Unit: By the way, Fannie was set up by Democrats and Freddie by Republicans. Crony capitalism is color-blind: it doesn't distinguish between red and blue.

Well, no. But harping on Fannie and Freddie to the exclusion of Wall Street is code for "Wall Street didn't do anything wrong."

Quoting Unit: So regulation failed, as you admit, and you want more?

No. I'd be quite happy for the financial sector to disappear completely from the economy and for health care to be provided without a market, just as agricultural commodities and defense are.

Quoting Unit: You're not "pointing out", you're "asserting".

You're trying to say that I'm offering an opinion, rather than a fact. Unfortunately, for you the verb "to assert" can refer to...assertions of fact. That's number one. Number two: "that's just like...your opinion, man"--really? That's your counterpoint? Three: I am pointing out facts: you can't have markets without lots and lots of very good regulation.

Quoting Ray: Gosh. Why do you select Frank as your example? Let's ponder.

Why? Is Frank a friend of yours?

Well, no. But harping on Fannie and Freddie to the exclusion of Wall Street is code for "Wall Street didn't do anything wrong."

Boy, are you sensitive...

No. I'd be quite happy for the financial sector to disappear completely from the economy and for health care to be provided without a market, just as agricultural commodities and defense are.

No banks? No market in agricultural commodities? What grade are you in? I suggest you take an Econ class when and if you go to college.

You're trying to say that I'm offering an opinion, rather than a fact. Unfortunately, for you the verb "to assert" can refer to...assertions of fact.

That's number one.

Number two: "that's just like...your opinion, man"--really? That's your counterpoint?

Three: I am pointing out facts: you can't have markets without lots and lots of very good regulation.

In your dreams.

I'm glad I don't watch every movie through the prism of a political pundit.

Quoting Unit: No market in agricultural commodities? What grade are you in? I suggest you take an Econ class when and if you go to college.

Well argued! The system of exchange that governs trade in agricultural commodities is not a market.

Quoting Unit: In your dreams.

Up my nose with a rubber hose!

Quoting Ray: The system of exchange that governs trade in agricultural commodities is not a market.

I just can't believe that you would be pointing to the sugar lobby, the corn lobby, the various price controls, tariffs, etc and to the military: the contractors, the waste, the inefficiency, etc...as THE model for society. I have often made the point here and elsewhere that left and right are one and the same thing, I guess I shall rest my case now.

Quoting Ray: Three: I am pointing out facts: you can't have markets without lots and lots of very good regulation.

Well, you can have markets without regulation, but some people would suffer and we can't have that. So we fiddle around with markets through regulations so that the worst effects won't be felt. This fiddling inevitably results in some kind of consequence the regulations didn't foresee. And this inevitably results in more regulation. Vicious cycle. And, I'm not advocating for totally free markets, just pointing out that regulation doesn't solve anything permanently or maybe ever.

Quoting Unit: Crony capitalism is color-blind: it doesn't distinguish between red and blue.

excellent point. and it gets at what is so frustrating about the "free market" arguments that we have here. we have a system that is so debased by monied interests that the idea of a "free market" existing is illusory until we get the political reforms necessary to insure that people with a little cash can't buy the whole political system. and we have people on both sides of the debate arguing cynically in the hopes of benefiting their cronies instead of the other guy's.

Quoting badhatharry: Well, you can have markets without regulation, but some people would suffer and we can't have that. So we fiddle around with markets through regulations so that the worst effects won't be felt. This fiddling inevitably results in some kind of consequence the regulations didn't foresee. And this inevitably results in more regulation.

Vicious cycle.

And, I'm not advocating for totally free markets, just pointing out that regulation doesn't solve anything permanently or maybe ever.

I partially disagree. Markets generate plenty of regulation, e.g. if you're wasteful you go out of business, if you don't keep promises you lose credibility, if you cheat on you wife you lose endorsements, etc...more generally there is an ethic about respecting contracts and private property that is home-grown within the sphere of voluntary exchanges. Then there are rules that get transmitted by judges making rulings, and finally there's what Congress does. What Congress does is a whole different ball of beeswax. Essentially whatever comes through their heads is called "law", but it really isn't. For one thing, laws should have a certain general character, like "thou shall not steal", i.e. they should be general and broadly applicable independently on who we

Quoting popcorn_karate: excellent point. and it gets at what is so frustrating about the "free market" arguments that we have here. we have a system that is so debased by monied interests that the idea of a "free market" existing is illusory until we get the political reforms necessary to insure that people with a little cash can't buy the whole political system.

and we have people on both sides of the debate arguing cynically in the hopes of benefiting their cronies instead of the other guy's.

For me "free-market" means voluntary trade and exchanges in society. The disgusting market that goes on on the Hill where politicians sell regulation to the highest bidder, I don't consider that a free market. That's theft and abuse of power. Politicians spend money they don't have and give away privileges to people who don't deserve them. Of course it would be nice to "reform" democracy, I'm with you on that. But I have no illusions whatsoever that money can be taken out of politics. As the saying goes "I don't blame the dogs for eating out of the thrash". If you give politicians the opportunity

Quoting Unit: I partially disagree. Markets generate plenty of regulation, e.g. if you're wasteful you go out of business, if you don't keep promises you lose credibility, if you cheat on you wife you lose endorsements, etc...more generally there is an ethic about respecting contracts and private property that is home-grown within the sphere of voluntary exchanges. Then there are rules that get transmitted by judges making rulings, and finally there's what Congress does. What Congress does is a whole different ball of beeswax. Essentially whatever comes through their heads is called "law", but it really isn't. For one thing, laws should have a certain general character, like "thou shall not steal", i.e. they should be general and broadly applicable independently on who we are talking about. Instead Congress operates more like a giant (evil) corporation. They have a budget, they can raise man-power, they'll do whatever they want. That's not law.

The regulations you are talking about in the first part of your answer are natural and/or natural consequences. Laws are important also. 'Thou shalt not' or we're going to throw your ass in jail. But the regulations I was talking about are those which try to push markets in

Quite true. I saw Avatar last night, and one the one hand, Tim & Dave are correct that there are a lot of problems with the various political points the movie makes or suggests. however, I didn't mind at all; the movie was a spectacular action movie that actually bothered to have a neat story, and the $300 million does, in fact, buy some very impressive special effects.

Particularly impressed with Tim's observation that Avatar misses the whole "tribal zone" dynamic that has happened whenever civilizations meet-- there is inevitably trade, some elements of the indigenous population are coopted into the colonial/imperial economy and/or political structures.