john31584 wrote:

---

 

Dexter wrote:

---

 

john31584 wrote:

---

The fact is, government policy forced or strongly encouraged banks to lend to people they otherwise wouldn't have, in the name of egalitarianism.

Government meddling caused this mess, and more government meddling is not going to fix it.

---

It's not government meddling that's the problem - it's inappropriate government meddling that has caused some, but not all of the problems. Without government regulation we'd have an extremely volatile market. Capitalism without regulation becomes feudalism where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and there is no middle class. There's a reason why oil barrens and the early monopolies were broken up was because they were too powerful. Right now we're allowing the same thing to happen with deregulation and then bailing them out.

 

---

 

Context dropping is fun.

 

---

I should be a politician. I'd be better than Palin, that's for sure.

MorisUkunRasik wrote:

---

 

Dexter wrote:

---

The difference between regulation and meddling is opinion - if you like the policy it's regulation and if you dislike it it's meddling.

---

 med·dle        (md'l)  Pronunciation Key
intr.v.   med·dled, med·dling, med·dles

   1. To intrude into other people's affairs or business; interfere. See Synonyms at interfere.
   2. To handle something idly or ignorantly; tamper.



reg·u·la·tion        /rgylen/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reg-yuh-ley-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun
1.    a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, esp. to regulate conduct.
2.    the act of regulating or the state of being regulated.



They are much different and are not matters of opinion.

 

---

I'm not saying the WORDS mean the same thing. I'm saying what we call passed policies differ according to our personal opinion on the matter passed. I.E. I might see a law being passed that says that trees are pollution and need to be cut down without a need to replant as meddling with the environment and Ronald Regan might think it's a regulation of the deforesting industry.

MorisUkunRasik wrote:

---

 

Dexter wrote:

---

The fact of the matter is this: Alan Greenspan fucked up by lowering interest rates and was too near sighted on our economic needs. But overall his monetary policies have stabilized the economy, and it wasn't all his fault. The market was artificially high to begin with and his policies worsened, of all that happened. It shows you have to be careful when regulating the economy and manipulation has the possibility to fuck things over, but done correctly it can stabilize the economy and it should be done to protect the free market, not interfere with it. We need regulation to promote healthy growth and control big business interests from effecting the market.

---

 we should not manipulate the market at all, we should merely regulate and let it take its course. A truly free market can and will fix itself, even if that means people will lose their jobs or businesses. Government should play a super minimal role. What gives big business any less rights than a small business? If you can provide a product that garners you a large amount of profit then so be it.

 

---

There's a huge difference between having a share of the market due to a superior product and monopolizing the industry through unfair trade and undue influence over smaller companies. I am not for the bail out - I've said from the begining I'm against the bail out and hope it never passes. But I am for reinstating a lot of the deregulations that have been passed under the Bush administration.

Dexter wrote:

---

And right now the market is so deregulated and has so many loop holes in it that the market is full of illegal activities which has substantially contributed to the current trends in the market and the falling dow. And without regulation everything is legal because there is nothing to state that it is not illegal.

---

 I hope you don't mean tax loop holes