3 ms·
I'm not in the US so I can't speak for y'all, but the regulation isn't a bad thing. While you might not be affected personally, because you've been successful,
by ljm 5y ago
I'm not in the US so I can't speak for y'all, but the regulation isn't a bad thing.
While you might not be affected personally, because you've been successful, it's better for the government to have your back than it is to entrust it to the free market. There's a hell of a lot of misery because the gov. doesn't step in enough, doesn't take care of its citizens.
This was learned the hard way in 1929 and, for whatever reason, was quickly forgotten.
That said, I can see why it's undesirable to some.
- wikidani 5y agoI don't see how the gov't respond to an economical crisis has anything to do with modern authoritarianism. Regulation without oversight and checks and balances does lead to tiranny, more often than it doesn't
- ljm 5y agoOf course, but I'd contend that regulation without oversight/checks and balances is tautological. Regulation in and of itself is the oversight, or the check and balance, and that responsibility is delegated to a specialised agency or department (that has a longer term scope than a single election cycle) rather than being directly managed by the administration in office at the time. An authoritarian regime isn't going to spin up a bureaucracy like that to do regulation-without-oversight, it's just going to lower its boot onto the population's collective face. You can hardly call that regulation. Perhaps we're just debating semantics here, but I think there's a distinction between regulating corporate behaviour (you must do X Y Z if you want to run a business in this country, for reasons A B C) and introducing a totalitarian regime (you must do X Y Z because I said so).