2 ms·
Shrinking the size and authority of the government sounds great in the light of disincentivizing certain behaviors, but I believe you're applying game mechanics
by wdewind 16y ago
Shrinking the size and authority of the government sounds great in the light of disincentivizing certain behaviors, but I believe you're applying game mechanics prematurely here. I (liberals in general mostly) actually don't WANT a smaller government, I want a better regulated one that in many cases has MORE power (ie: banking regulation). The solution is not to join the Tea Party and tear down the federal government, it's to fix the government by providing a better feedback mechanism, and restore the regulations that Regan etc. destroyed.
Governance at local levels sounds great, but unfortunately there are things that need to be regulated federally.
Perhaps a compromise we can agree on is that the separation of authority is where the core issue lies, and some of that authority certainly needs to be pushed down to the local level, but some certainly needs federal regulation (again, Finance, lookin at you).
- piguy314 16y agoLesig makes sure to point out that government over-regulation had as much of a hand to play in the financial crisis as de-regulation. Government incentives from the FHA and Fanny/Freddy are much of what drove of the investment boom and overvaluation of real estate. Lets also not forget that the government controls the price of borrowing through the interest rate set by their proxy the federal reserve (who kept the rate too low and caused the excess liquidity to flow into real estate). A system with no central bank or government intervention might have many smaller panics, but it certainly never would have had a large, pervasive one like the debt derivatives crash of 2008.