3 ms·

I would suggest that it was an elimination of a lot of laws regarding financial transactions and regulation that enabled the recent decline. The removal of the

by fnid 17y ago

I would suggest that it was an elimination of a lot of laws regarding financial transactions and regulation that enabled the recent decline. The removal of these laws enacted to prevent a recurrence of an historical collapse, did in fact bring another collapse, so pragmatically, I would say laws help.

dantheman 17y ago
We are more regulated now than we've ever been before. All this talk about deregulation, though real in some cases, often just meant a decline in the rate of new regulation. When there are less regulations people take interest and make sure things work correctly. For instance, when opening a bank account most people don't do much research because they're all FDIC insured -- who cares what the bank does with your money. Without that insurance you would care. If we removed financial regulations, the markets would radically reform and lots of small individual investors would get out -- either into mutual funds or some other managed investment.
- fnid 17y ago
  We are not more regulated than ever before, that's just not true. Regulations are being removed and the regulators are more lax. Did you see what Madoff said about the regulator looking at his business? He called him a blow hard. I also don't think most consumers of banking products are able to determine the solvency of a bank. If the FDIC wasn't there, the account holders would be at greater risk even if they did care. I don't believe markets reform themselves. The market does what is in the individual best interest, not the interest of the market.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    Just because the regulators are inept doesn't mean that there aren't more regulations. http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n4/cpr31n4-1.html http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n4/cpr31n4-1.html Perhaps an individual isn't able to tell, but consumer reports would be able to. Each individual working in their best interest reforms the market. If they believe that it is unfair, e.g. insider trading, then they will refuse to take part. Thus a market would form to cater to these individuals.

by fnid 17y ago

dantheman 17y ago

We are more regulated now than we've ever been before. All this talk about deregulation, though real in some cases, often just meant a decline in the rate of new regulation. When there are less regulations people take interest and make sure things work correctly. For instance, when opening a bank account most people don't do much research because they're all FDIC insured -- who cares what the bank does with your money. Without that insurance you would care. If we removed financial regulations, the markets would radically reform and lots of small individual investors would get out -- either into mutual funds or some other managed investment.

fnid 17y ago
We are not more regulated than ever before, that's just not true. Regulations are being removed and the regulators are more lax. Did you see what Madoff said about the regulator looking at his business? He called him a blow hard. I also don't think most consumers of banking products are able to determine the solvency of a bank. If the FDIC wasn't there, the account holders would be at greater risk even if they did care. I don't believe markets reform themselves. The market does what is in the individual best interest, not the interest of the market.
- dantheman 17y ago
  Just because the regulators are inept doesn't mean that there aren't more regulations. http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n4/cpr31n4-1.html http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n4/cpr31n4-1.html Perhaps an individual isn't able to tell, but consumer reports would be able to. Each individual working in their best interest reforms the market. If they believe that it is unfair, e.g. insider trading, then they will refuse to take part. Thus a market would form to cater to these individuals.