3 ms·
"we need more regulators" When did I make this argument? No, it is a convenient strawman for you, and a way of changing the topic away from "Who is to blame fo
by crux_ 18y ago
"we need more regulators"
When did I make this argument? No, it is a convenient strawman for you, and a way of changing the topic away from "Who is to blame for the stupid, stupid, stupid decisions on Wall Street and their rather disastrous consequences?"
I'm willing to apportion some blame to the regulators, but it's quite amusing to see the hypocrisy of some libertarians when they rush to shield the banking and finance industries from the scorn they so richly deserve; blaming anyone and everyone (usually regulators and/or the government, conveniently in line with their ideology) except for the individuals responsible for the decision!
To paraphrase a common libertarian lament, whatever happened to individual responsibility?
- anamax 18y ago> When did I make this argument? All of these discussions are in a context of "what do we do?" with "more regulation" being one of the options.
- crux_ 18y agoNo, these (specific) discussions are not in a context of "what do we do?" I think it encourages clearer thinking to tackle one thing at a time. Allow me to quote myself in the first sentence of my first post in this thread: > As counterpoints, first consider that blame for the current situation and the proper next steps are two separate issues.
- anamax 18y ago>As counterpoints, first consider that blame for the current situation and the proper next steps are two separate issues. Knowing how you got to where you are is relevant to knowing what to do. If you prefer, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. I'm not interested in punishing anyone, so "blame" has the wrong connotations. It's actually credit assignment. Do more of what works, do less of what doesn't.