I just made an observation I thought I would toss out there and see what people say.

Oddly there are those who want less government but also those who want more.

In the middle of this is the whole question about deregulation.

Now this comes up with the government seizure of one of my favorite web sites for movies, movies-links.tv as well as several others. When it comes to pirate movies people scream for more government intervention to combat video pirates.

But what about the pirates of Enron and Country Wide Home Loans? How about the Pirates of Credit who make you sign contracts they can change the terms of at any time becasue they have no need to explain SHART to you? Banking and Lending are deregulated?

How about Mandatory but largely deregulated Insurance? Like feeling Raped every year?

How about all those charges penalties and fees no one seems to know if they are legal or not?

Now add to this the Exxon Valdez incident 20 some odd years ago. Exxon is still fighting paying off the damages they owe for that fiasco. Now we look at the present day and the disaster that is still unfolding in the gulf. Volunteers are being prevented for helping in the clean up effort but alien labor from other countries is being imported to do the clean up in some areas?

Also add to this the issue of the Federal Government importing some 1.5 million workers a year from abroad yet here we are suffering critical shortages in labor?

Now the function of a government is to regulate and set standards. Law is a set of standards. So why do we have to selectively apply said standards?

It is like people want immigration deregulated too. I mean WTF is the point of having a government if they don't do anything except selectively enforce laws to placate a whining industrial sector who are loosing money so they can't buy themselves new gulf Stream Fives this year. They have to settle for gulf Stream Fours!

Now how about all those investment firms who lost people's retirement funds?

And one of the greatest insults of all... Our government does not regulate lending and banking yet they bail them out with OUR tax money!

So why do I feel such outrage?

GEE! I think I have foundation to be concerned!

2 wrongs don't make a right. It sounds trite, I know, but it's also true. While I fully support the government going after pirates, which are nothing more than thieves and should be killed like all thieves upon conviction, in my opinion, I would also support doing the same to all those other baddies you mentioned.
We need regulations for some things because people are greedy, short-sighted and stupid. However, the vast amount of regulations currently in place only serve to discourage taking responsibility for one's actions and to discourage innovation, both in business and science.

The government should be regulated and anything that affects health and that's it

regulation is a necessary evil to combat the evil that arises from deregulation.

if greed and tribalism could be eliminated then reglulation would not be necessary.

It’s a matter of what the people believe are the issues in society as to how much reliance should be placed on government. Overall, the major issues, in society today, are too extensive both financially and with regards to legality. Those issues require Federal intervention.



I think it was seven sites. The sites were running illegally and those who used them were infringing of the copyrights of others. In other words they were all steeling something of value. Because internet use is largely unregulated in the United states and due to the international impact of the sites involved, the Federal government is the wisest choice to handle the situation. It has to be the Federal government (Congress) that makes any laws or takes action to protect citizens when it comes to the internet, because it affects every person and their rights.



You’ve grouped a lot of issues in the above – to the point of way over generalizing. BUT, still I think I understand your rant. Every business wants to make money, but no business (in the U.S.) should be allowed to do so unscrupulously. Of course that means the Federal OR sometimes the State government should have the power to regulate certain aspects of any business. Unfortunately, the agencies that have been set up for this purpose have been allowed to proceed without oversight.

So I would interject that it’s not a lack of government ‘regulation’ so much as it is a lack of oversight by the Federal/State governments of established agencies. I think this translates into public fear of governance becoming privatized. Once Fed or State awards a privatized contract, who will ‘regulate’ it (oversee it?)



What government - State or Federal? After Congress passes a law the standard is not actually set until the law is challenged and State or Federal courts get involved. New laws are open to interpretation, until challenged. Confusing issues of State and Fed is quite common, and so is confusing law with a standard which might account for why selectively applied standards seem to be prevalent.



You certainly can’t expect to blame the government for that, can you?

When are we responsible for our own actions? For example, why do we contribute to those 401Ks we are offered at work? Well, for one thing many employers match contributions up to a certain percent and some people feel they have some control in the markets they choose to place their investment in. But REALLY why do we use the 401K? Because most people do not have the kind of commitment it takes to deposit 3% of their paycheck into an FDIC insured IRA account, the interest rate is lower, but not nearly the risk of other investments. And those who choose to (play) the market, can’t really expect to win EVERY time. So there is no one to blame for loss of IRA funds but our own greed or lack of commitment to our own future.



The Federal government certainly does regulate lending and banking, they simply don’t regulate the Federal Reserve (that I know of). Of course that doesn’t mean that banking regulations keep pace with changes within the industry OR that anyone is actually in charge of oversight to make sure regulations are enforced. So I totally get where you’re coming from on this one. In fact that’s worth my own rant. I’ll put it in a separate reply.

My opinion was always that they should have let those banks that were going to fail, just do so and here’s why.

The majority of PEOPLE have their money in banks that are FDIC insured. So why not let all the banks fold that will fold and pay out on the insurance? PEOPLE would simply move their funds (via FDIC payout check) to another, solvent, institution. Those institutions would then be a better position to purchase the debt/assets of defunct institutions and become stronger (all the while government could figuring out how PROPER regulating efforts.)

In the mean time, all these PEOPLE who have been laid off, are out of work, out of unemployment, underemployed, who have or are loosing vehicles, homes and businesses would have kept their vehicles, homes and businesses (free of payment) for as long at it takes for the debt/assets of defunct banks to become the property of another institution. By then, (maybe a couple three years or so) it is hoped that the majority of people would be back to work and ready to RESUME paying on their loans.

Instead of bailout money – the gov could have used a small portion of that amount, put a LOT of people to work instituting better banking regulatory agencies, AND create (at least temporary) jobs dealing with the redistributions of defunct banks debt and assets. So all those people who lost their jobs when banks went under would have plenty of new opportunities with the ‘solvent’ and ‘growing’ banking industries, banking regulatory agencies and redistribution of defunct bank holdings as well.

But here’s the problem - FDIC – FSLIC – FIRREA – RTC – FRF – SAIF do those acronyms mean anything to anyone? Well I already introduced FDIC as for the others? Well the FSLIC was instituted about the same time as FDIC but it was for thrift institutions (savings and loans). In the 1980’s it became totally insolvent and here it is almost 30 years later and the government is still trying to resolve the asset/debt distribution of the S&Ls. In fact, I think, their current goal is to have it all sorted out by 2020. The other acronyms, well they were created to deal with the FSLIC problem. So you see that substantiates what I was saying about all the jobs that would have been created if the banks were allowed to fold.

Ok – so by those standards - if they let all those banks fold – I might have been able to keep my house till I die without ever making another payment. But we can’t let PEOPLE get away with something so extravagant as keeping their home, or their vehicle, or their business, not when there are CEOs who need a yacht or Board members who needs a personal jet or CFOs who need to be bribed with a large enough salary not to embezzle. Without those big salaries who would create the PACs, who would financially back our political leaders?

But we The People just keep takin’ it all in stride.