[Samurai]

Originally Posted by e1t1bet

Nonsense.

If you can't keep a civil tone, you better stop now.

Originally Posted by e1t1bet

The basic tenet of the scientific method (at least as per Popper - and what is the widely accepted principle) is that (1) it must be falsifiable and (2) if a claim is made which renders the theory false - it must either address it, or modify itself.

And you have not provided anything that disproves the importance to regulation, other than bad examples. How about examples of what happens when there is no regulation?

Originally Posted by e1t1bet

The problem with a lot of economic theory is that it's not hard science, and as a consequence its validity (and efficacy) is masked because of political interests.
Also, what do you mean by economic theory? There are a lot of different schools to begin with. There are classicals, keynesians, neo-classicals, neo-keynesians, austrians, monetarists etc. Thus, it is prudent to discuss how well grounded some, or all, of these theories are - if the thread is really about explaining "economic theory" i.e.

I agree economic theory is no hard science, but it is a social science. Economic theory predates most scientific theories. I have shied away from dragging in different schools of thought because it further muddies the water. When I say economic theory, I refer to the best practices and knowledge garnered over thousands of years. Regulations have always existed in any economy right from the ancient times.

If you actually understand Economics, I don't have to explain the importance of regulation to you. But there can be good regulations as well as bad regulations.

[RS_DEL]

Originally Posted by e1t1bet

@The Glass-Steagal act: Would you really call it removal of regulations, or implementing a new regulation - that'd allow investment banks to access FDIC insurance?
The libertarian position was always clear: If you remove GSA, then don't
Also, please do not forget that a big reason for the crisis was excessive subprime lending, and not "gambling" with the money of the savings accounts holders. Again - the Congress actively backed ninja loans.

To me it seems you are attempting to refute what I say by validating it.

GSA removal was the handiwork of the great Mr G. His premise was market efficiencies must be harnessed than stifled. His prescription for doing so ? Deregulating markets and letting markets be SROs. That oxymoronic nonsensical term still gets used inspite of all the mess. He helped create an environment where the SEC and other regulatory authorities were in bed with the banksters. The results are there for all to see! Please do not try to tell me things would not have been ay different if the bank-sters did not have the freedom they did.

With respect to the limited context of the original post of @TSK that I responded to, I still contend market regulation is a MUST. Free markets are an illusion like the mirage of the oasis in the desert. Wherever markets have been allowed to run free and unregulated, they have led to crisis and chaos because the freedom of the markets was subverted by a powerful minority simply because they had the means to do so.

[e1t1bet]

Originally Posted by Samurai

If you can't keep a civil tone, you better stop now.

Sorry - forgot that calling a spade a spade can be offensive.

Originally Posted by Samurai

And you have not provided anything that disproves the importance to regulation, other than bad examples.

I clearly cited two instances of regulations where they failed. I can cite 10 more. Of course, you'd call all of them "bad" examples. The commies still claim that their theory works, just that Soviet Russia didn't implement them properly.
Your system wants regulations. I am saying that regulations lead to too much power with the government, and ends up in bad regulations that hurts consumers. I am citing bad regulations to support my case. It's a valid logical argument. Oh wait! You're the guy who believes in homeopathy!

Originally Posted by Samurai

How about examples of what happens when there is no regulation?

I am the guy purporting the cause of no regulations, and I am supposed to cite examples that make my own case look bad? Sorry, it's my prerogative to not cite examples that hurts my own argument. I am sorry, but you're on the side which is supposed to be citing examples to disprove my case.
I'd be more than willing to change my stance if you actually cite a real example, instead of very loosely hypothesizing about how bad the world would become if markets were left free. As I said - why don't you cite one real life example where no regulations led to monopoly or "free-market illusions" - as you'd put it.

Originally Posted by Samurai

I agree economic theory is no hard science, but it is a social science. Economic theory predates most scientific theories.

Given that there hardly were any significant economists before Adam Smith, I doubt that claim. However, even if it were so, it still doesn't nullify the point that there are different schools of economics, with contradicting views.

Originally Posted by Samurai

I have shied away from dragging in different schools of thought because it further muddies the water. When I say economic theory, I refer to the best practices and knowledge garnered over thousands of years.

There are very few best practices garnered over thousands of years. Different central banks have different views of how they should handle their own currencies. Economic viewpoints vary with different universities (Saltwater vs Chicago for eg.) There are no set standards - I am sorry.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Regulations have always existed in any economy right from the ancient times.

Doesn't mean they are indispensable.

Originally Posted by Samurai

If you actually understand Economics, I don't have to explain the importance of regulation to you.

That's the reason a lot of schools (Classicals, Neo-Classicals, Chicago guys and of course the Austrians - but they aren't revered as much as they should be) hate regulations?
Even the modern Keynesians see the value in deregulation.

[e1t1bet]

Originally Posted by RS_DEL

Please do not try to tell me things would not have been ay different if the bank-sters did not have the freedom they did.

If they didn't have access to FDIC insurance and bailouts, of course things would have been different. It doesn't matter what a regulator says, because there is no reason to believe that his/her words reflect his/her intent. If freedom was indeed the intent, they wouldn't have had access to FDIC insurance.
Also, the banks lobbied for that regulation. As long as governments have that kind of power, what stops lobbyists from getting whatever they want? If we live in the paradigm that regulations are awesome, there's nothing that stops corporates from arm-twisting politicians into getting whatever regulation works best for them.
Also, do note that the banking industry is probably the most regulated industry in the world (along with oil and gas). Guess which companies are the most influential in the world? Banks and Oil and Gas companies. Allowing governments to freely pass economic regulations only leads to cronyism.

Originally Posted by RS_DEL

Wherever markets have been allowed to run free and unregulated, they have led to crisis and chaos because the freedom of the markets was subverted by a powerful minority simply because they had the means to do so

I don't remember a single instance in history, where markets have been allowed to run free and unregulated. The rich and powerful wouldn't want that - no one wants to compete

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by e1t1bet

Sorry - forgot that calling a spade a spade can be offensive.

Not true. You are being rude when you can merely disagree.

Originally Posted by e1t1bet

Oh wait! You're the guy who believes in homeopathy!

What is this supposed to mean? Oh, now I remember you. You were the guy who called all parents who use homeopathy on their kids as child abusers. Now that I recall you and your usual style of argument, I see no point in having a rational discussion with you. Besides, your knowledge of economics is very anecdotal.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by e1t1bet

And which telecom provider is sitting on that kind of cash - to be able to buy the entire pan-India spectrum? The 3g spectrum auctions were more-or-less at market rates - and not a SINGLE provider could buy a pan India license, let alone buying exclusive rights to the entire spectrum. Again - please specify how a monopoly would occur?.

you are asking about monopolies.
Let me give you ground realities.
Lets take broadband.
In most areas of many big cities(like noida, ludhiana, gurgaon), there is only one private player. Airtel. The only competition it gets is from BSNL DSL.

If govt does not push broadband, does not lay down community owned backbone, this situation will get worse.

In the USA the supposed mecca of free market, most small players have been gobbled up, and most areas have one supplier or two suppliers for broadband. So you have one player in cable space(eg comcast), and one player in DSL space(AT&T),

Many areas(in metros) are getting only single broadband supplier.
This is what flawed regulation, or complete lack off regulation does. What starts as the illusion of free market eventually becomes a cartel.

Remember, a corporation does not think, it does not have a concience. Its primary objective is to maximise returns to shareholders. A cartel, duopoly and price fixing, esp in space where barrier of entry is high(eg Airlines, Broadband, telecom etc.,), is always more profitable.

Memory makers have been caught with their pants down, but unfortunately, the fines imposed are a small percentage of the profits they made by price collusion.

So leaving corporates alone creates a fascist state. Even with regulation, they operate behind lobbyists and are the real power behind laws.

They have subverted the power of democracy.

[e1t1bet]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

you are asking about monopolies.
Let me give you ground realities.
Lets take broadband.
In most areas of many big cities(like noida, ludhiana, gurgaon), there is only one private player. Airtel. The only competition it gets is from BSNL DSL.

http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf
Network effects lead to natural monopolies - but always in history, they have tended to be transient. Multiple broadband suppliers are already around in some cities (Act, Beam etc), and are undercutting Airtel (AND Bsnl)

EDIT: Also, do note that the broadband industry IS extremely regulated in most countries. In fact, most of these companies lobby hard to outlaw sharing of infrastructure (optical fibres, spectrum etc). Their fear being, if one competitor starts, they would all have to - and super-normal profits would dry out.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

If govt does not push broadband, does not lay down community owned backbone, this situation will get worse.

Look, I respect your hypothesis, but it is exactly that - a hypothesis. I will buy your argument that the situation will get worse if you back it up with some rationale or evidence or a supporting theory backed with evidence/examples. How exactly will the situation get worse?

Originally Posted by tsk1979

In the USA the supposed mecca of free market, most small players have been gobbled up, and most areas have one supplier or two suppliers for broadband. So you have one player in cable space(eg comcast), and one player in DSL space(AT&T),

The US is NOT a good example of a free-market. It has never been a free-market. Not even close. At one point in time, the US had more imports and tariffs than socialist countries. What one preaches, might not be what one practices.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Remember, a corporation does not think, it does not have a concience. Its primary objective is to maximise returns to shareholders. A cartel, duopoly and price fixing, esp in space where barrier of entry is high(eg Airlines, Broadband, telecom etc.,), is always more profitable.

I agree - but that is what backs the "separation of state and economy" point of view. When you leave regulators with too much power, corporations are going to demand regulations that increase entry barriers.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

So leaving corporates alone creates a fascist state. Even with regulation, they operate behind lobbyists and are the real power behind laws.

Corporates do not have monopoly on violence. The state does. When you allow corporates to influence politicians, because politicians have the authority to increase their bottom-lines, that is when they buy them out. What creates a fascist state is crony-ism, not minimum-intervention capitalism.
I am not for "no regulations". Contracts need to be respected, Consumers need to be protected against fraud, the environment needs to be protected etc. That is the role of the government - to maintain law and order. I even buy Coase theorem to some extent.
What I am strictly against is any legislation that selectively favors any industry (either preventing it from collapse, or allowing it to function inefficiently with super-normal profits) in the name of "increasing competition", "protecting jobs/doom/etc", "promoting inclusive growth" etc

[e1t1bet]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I see no point in having a rational discussion with you. Besides, your knowledge of economics is very anecdotal.

Yes, and what economic theory have you exactly cited? Every post of yours has been along the lines of "if we allow no regulation, then horrible things will happen"

Note from mod: Please do not discuss mod actions in public

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by e1t1bet

http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf
Network effects lead to natural monopolies - but always in history, they have tended to be transient. Multiple broadband suppliers are already around in some cities (Act, Beam etc), and are undercutting Airtel (AND Bsnl)

EDIT: Also, do note that the broadband industry IS extremely regulated in most countries. In fact, most of these companies lobby hard to outlaw sharing of infrastructure (optical fibres, spectrum etc). Their fear being, if one competitor starts, they would all have to - and super-normal profits would dry out.



Look, I respect your hypothesis, but it is exactly that - a hypothesis. I will buy your argument that the situation will get worse if you back it up with some rationale or evidence or a supporting theory backed with evidence/examples. How exactly will the situation get worse?

competition exists only in some pockets. In most regions, its a monopoly, with just one govt player. If there was no govt player to influence tarriffs, things will go worse.
As for a real example. Do you know that "broadband" in India is defined as 256kbps. Before TRAI stepped in, companies were offering 64 and 128kbps as broadband.
Now TRAI is going to step in(if its allowed) to have 512kbps definition. If companies have their way, its far more profitable for them to offer 256kbps minimum speed after fair usage limits expire, then offer 512kbps.
So my hypothesis is based on ground realities.

The US is NOT a good example of a free-market. It has never been a free-market. Not even close. At one point in time, the US had more imports and tariffs than socialist countries. What one preaches, might not be what one practices.

As for as cable companies, and network providers are concerned, US is fairly unregulated.

I agree - but that is what backs the "separation of state and economy" point of view. When you leave regulators with too much power, corporations are going to demand regulations that increase entry barriers.

Some things, regulation or no regulation, will have high entry barriers. this includes railways, road, infrastructure, networks, airlines. Its not due to regulation that the entry barriers are high.

Corporates do not have monopoly on violence. The state does. When you allow corporates to influence politicians, because politicians have the authority to increase their bottom-lines, that is when they buy them out. What creates a fascist state is crony-ism, not minimum-intervention capitalism.
I am not for "no regulations". Contracts need to be respected, Consumers need to be protected against fraud, the environment needs to be protected etc. That is the role of the government - to maintain law and order. I even buy Coase theorem to some extent.
What I am strictly against is any legislation that selectively favors any industry (either preventing it from collapse, or allowing it to function inefficiently with super-normal profits) in the name of "increasing competition", "protecting jobs/doom/etc", "promoting inclusive growth" etc

I could not understand the monoply on violence argument. What does it have to do with this thread. Corporates have armies of lawyers which can make your life more miserable than a sound thrashing.
As for regulation.
Increasing competition : Absolutely necessary. without competition you get monoply, which can then set any price they want.
Protecting jobs : Again important. Many prosperous countries are surrounded by poor countries where people are willing to work at 1/2 the cost. Without regulation of immigrants, the social system of the country and quality of life will collapse
Inclusive growth : Again its necessary. Airtel will not erect a tower in a village of 20 subscribers unless they can recover cost of infrastucture. If a company is allowed to use infrastructure put by the country, there needs to be regulation to force inclusive growth. Govts job is growth of all its people, not just the elite few.

That said, I want to see an example of "no regulation" leading to high quality of life for the community(not for the corporation),
most successful societies I have seen are in Northern europe(when it comes to Quality of life), and Europeans are very very strong headed when it comes to regulation. What will just get you scolding from justice department will actually get you millions of euros in fines in Europe.
Their economy may be in doldrums, but their social quality of life is excellent.
And its regulation which helped achieve that.
Look what no regulation did to the railroads in america.

[e1t1bet]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

competition exists only in some pockets. In most regions, its a monopoly, with just one govt player.

The pdf I posted addresses this. Competition started coming in slowly.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

If there was no govt player to influence tarriffs, things will go worse.
As for a real example. Do you know that "broadband" in India is defined as 256kbps. Before TRAI stepped in, companies were offering 64 and 128kbps as broadband.
Now TRAI is going to step in(if its allowed) to have 512kbps definition. If companies have their way, its far more profitable for them to offer 256kbps minimum speed after fair usage limits expire, then offer 512kbps.
So my hypothesis is based on ground realities.

The definition of what "broadband" is - is pure semantics. If someone pays the same for a 128kbps connection, as one would for a 10 mbps connection in the same neighborhood - then the only principle that applies is "caveat emptor"
The on-ground reality is that there are ISPs providing 10mbps connections with a FUP of 75 GB for 1000 bucks or so. The government never legislated this, and the state owned company doesn't provide such speeds at such a low cost, or the same reliability. When there is demand, the market answers. The process might take time, but supply eventually arrives.
Such ISPs don't exist in most parts of the country because of lack of demand. If I choose to live 200 miles from any civilization, and demand that I be provided 24/7 3 phase electricity, and well-maintained roads - it's not going to happen. Whether it's the market, or the state - there is a cost to providing services. If there is lack of scale, no one can solve the individual's problem. There is no Beam or Act in Ludhiyana, because perhaps there is no "perceivable" demand at this time.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

As for as cable companies, and network providers are concerned, US is fairly unregulated.
Some things, regulation or no regulation, will have high entry barriers. this includes railways, road, infrastructure, networks, airlines. Its not due to regulation that the entry barriers are high.

The FCC is fairly large imho - and widely criticized for selectively favoring firms.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

I could not understand the monoply on violence argument. What does it have to do with this thread. Corporates have armies of lawyers which can make your life more miserable than a sound thrashing.
As for regulation.

The lawyers use state laws as instruments of control. That's the argument. A company cannot send its cops to my house - only the state can. When you let corporates indirectly take control of this necessary state privilege (i.e. monopoly of violence) - that's what leads to fascism.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Increasing competition : Absolutely necessary. without competition you get monoply, which can then set any price they want.
Protecting jobs : Again important. Many prosperous countries are surrounded by poor countries where people are willing to work at 1/2 the cost. Without regulation of immigrants, the social system of the country and quality of life will collapse
Inclusive growth : Again its necessary. Airtel will not erect a tower in a village of 20 subscribers unless they can recover cost of infrastucture. If a company is allowed to use infrastructure put by the country, there needs to be regulation to force inclusive growth. Govts job is growth of all its people, not just the elite few.

I agree that all three are critical and important. However, almost every single time such words are used, it's usually to discreetly pass/stop a legislation that favors some cartel. Besides, central planning and government interventions have hardly ever been able to address any of these issues (except in states like Norway or Australia - where you have small populations surrounded by infinite resources).

Originally Posted by tsk1979

That said, I want to see an example of "no regulation" leading to high quality of life for the community(not for the corporation),

There's never been any country with no regulations.
The Asian Tigers - Some of them started with almost similar per-capita GDP as India, and around the same time. I wouldn't say they had no state-intervention, but minimal regulations, low taxation and free trade got them where we cannot reach anytime soon. Of course, the situation in these countries is very different today. Again - I am not claiming that these countries didn't have regulations - just that they were far less regulated than most other economies (like India, China or even the United States)

Originally Posted by tsk1979

most successful societies I have seen are in Northern europe(when it comes to Quality of life), and Europeans are very very strong headed when it comes to regulation. What will just get you scolding from justice department will actually get you millions of euros in fines in Europe.
Their economy may be in doldrums, but their social quality of life is excellent.
And its regulation which helped achieve that.

I knew someone would quote Scandinavia
Norway is an exception as I cited earlier - too small a population surrounded by oil.
The other major ones are all in a tiny bit of trouble btw. Denmark has this situation where their skilled labor is migrating out because the Danish welfare state overtaxes its skilled youth (I think the rate there is more than 50%) to fund its welfare programs.
Sweden started off as one of the most deregulated markets, creating most of its wealth by the 70s before socialists like Olof Palme took over. Consequently, Sweden ran into a major crisis in the 90s, and has ever since been on a path of deregulation + random state projects like Vinnova.
However, the scandinavian economies have never been regulated in the same way as the US is or India is. They have very strong "consumer protection" kind of laws, which I don't think I, or any free-market advocate is against.
If someone sells a lemon as a car and refuses to replace it, and is slapped a million dollar fine - that isn't really an economic regulation. It's a law/regulation that enforces contracts, and penalizes individuals who don't respect contracts. My problem is with regulations that tinker with the market's natural pricing mechanism.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Look what no regulation did to the railroads in america.

Rails are tricky because they tend to be public goods. For eg. In India, I'd like to see private options in rail, but I don't think doing away with the state company is a good short-term strategy.
I am not against government intervention - however I strongly believe that most of the recent problems people keep citing are because of too big a government and not the contrary.

[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

you are asking about monopolies.
Let me give you ground realities.
Lets take broadband.
In most areas of many big cities(like noida, ludhiana, gurgaon), there is only one private player. Airtel. The only competition it gets is from BSNL DSL.

I think you have missed basic economics in this question.
In end 2009 (With copper prices being what it was), airtel's estimates on the cost of reaching a new customer was 20k. Today that would be more.

So who would do broadband business? where the cost of acquiry of a single customer is so high?
a. Incumbent monopolies
b. Someone like Reliance who has the pockets to invest and thinks it can win. Unfortunately, no one like that in the market.
c. BSNL (who are losing money in the business btw - do see their numbers!)

Thus, instead of competition in this market, i would vote for regulation and stiff enforcement.

Now frankly, the other question is what you said:

If govt does not push broadband, does not lay down community owned backbone, this situation will get worse.

In a poor country of 1.2-1.3 billion people, does the government have enough cash to fund such a project? I don't think so (if you go by the number of states asking for bailouts, and the general fiscal deficits). We are not a rich city state like Singapore who have duly rolled out a National broadband policy.

India needs to first save foodgrains from rotting by building decent infra (for the welfare system to work) and killing the corruption therein.

[Hayek]

Originally Posted by Samurai

This is what I call as the anecdotal approach to describing economics. It is like deciding all dogs are bad, because dogs sometimes bite little children.

Citing bad regulation is not an argument for doing away with all regulation.

I don't want to get into name calling but anecdotes from people who run businesses in the real world are often of greater value in taking policy decisions than the results of theoretIcal ivory tower economic models developed by and reflecting the biases of academic economists. The repeated failure of regulators to produce more benefits than costs, and the very real risk, both in developed markets and more so in India where regulators are easily and repeatedly captured by competing vested interests is a good reason to call for strong cost benefit analysis before introducing regulation.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Corporates have only one only agenda, maximize profits to the company while staying within the law. If there is no law (regulation), they can do anything. In the absence of environmental law, industries can pollute rivers and ground water with impunity. In the absence of trade practices law, industries can lie to & cheat customers and get away with it.

Why did US companies move most of their manufacturing operations to third world countries? They say to reduce cost. Guess which countries have the least cost, the ones with least regulation. That is why most of the electronics we buy are made in sweat-shop like factories in China.

And what may I ask is wrong with corporates focusing only on maximising profits? I agree that clean environment is a good, which at some stage societies become rich enough to demand. But in India, our regulators who are focused on maximising opportunities for bribes are introducing arbitrary environmental regulations without the slightest focus on what the impact of the same would be on job and wealth creation. So the New Bombay airport gets delayed on various grounds including the absurd CRZ rule, under which all great coastal cities like New York, Singapore, Hong Kong, San Francisco would not exist and also not have airports (which have all been built by reclaiming from the sea), and massive investment projects like Posco, Mittal Steel etc get delayed or cancelled because extracting minerals from forests should not be done in India. It is easy to guess which lobbies are behind these decisions by the Moef.

Also, you seem to buy the rubbish argument of the most protectionist elements in the West, who believe that low skill Americans with only a high school education deserve a "middle class" life style with 2 cars every 4 years and a 4 bed 3 bath McMansion and that competition from those with similar qualifications but who are happy to work to stay in a 1 bhk flat and to own a motor bike is unfair. The sweat shop factory workers in China voluntarily choose to work in those sweat shops, because they offer much better pay and potential for savings than the agricultural jobs they are moving out of. Au contraire in India, our idiotic labor regulations which you seem to be so fond of, prevent such sweat shops from coming up and have a created a significant risk that our demographic dividend from a rapidly rising labor participation rate will turn into a demographic nightmare, without jobs for semi skilled folks.

The same argument about sweat shops has been used by people like Chuck Shumer, who claim that all our techies working for Infosys et al are cyber coolies, who are being exploited since they work for less than a wage that would let them afford a BMW every 3-4 years that similarly qualified people in the US get. Do you agree with that, and would you have been glad if we imposed labor laws on the tech sector that prohibited jobs from being outsourced here without offering similar pay and benefits as were being offered to the Americans doing one jobs earlier?

Originally Posted by Samurai

Well crafted regulation when combined with proper enforcement does a good job in forcing the companies to do the right thing. A thermal power plant can be forced to cleanup the effluents before releasing it into rivers by law. In the absence of such law, they wouldn't. A good consumer protection law can severely penalize companies that cheat the customers.

This is what regulation is supposed to do. However, if the industry lobbyists manage to bribe the politicians to create a bad regulation, then it is the subversion of the system. You shouldn't use that as a reason for doing away all regulation.

I agree, as would Adam Smith or the real Hayek, that we cannot live without some kind of a state. But the fundamental responsibilities of the state are just three fold
1. Safeguard citizens from external threats
2. Punish those who try to steal property from fellow citizens
3. Provide an effective mechanism for enforcement of contracts and settlement of disputes between private parties

The Indian state does a terrible job on all these parameters - foreign terrorists strike us with impunity, criminals are almost never convicted or acquitted for that matter within their life spans, and contractual disputes cannot be settled through courts even in decades. Asking for any other regulation or activities from this incompetent state when it fails to fulfil its most basic responsibilities is ridiculous. While there are some highly regulated but successful economies like those in Singapore and Scandinavia, in India, I would much rather trust my luck to a complete laissez faire economy with next to no government regulation than to the Indian state.

Finally, we started this topic on fuel prices. And let me assure you of one fact, the market for fuel is highly efficient, and does not need government regulation (beyond high and stable per litre taxes to encourage efficiency) - I cant think of a single successful economy in the world where fuel prices are not market driven, and claiming that the global banking crisis proves that we need government interference in fuel prices is certainly disingenuous.

[Samurai]

I had given up the discussion on regulation since I realised a certain irony. That people still need to be convinced about the importance of regulation even after the 2008 subprime crisis.

Yesterday, I watched this 4 year old documentary which is based on real interviews from the real culprits behind the subprime crisis. I was shocked at how systematically the financial services were de-regulated to literally ensure this crisis. What shocked me most was that the economics professors of Harvard and Columbia were fully hand-in-glove. What kind of training are they providing to future economists and financial professionals?

If anyone has not watched this movie, please do watch. The final shock of the movie, most people who were instrumental in causing the crisis were re-appointed by Obama when he took office. So nothing changed...

http://watchdocumentaries.com/inside-job/

[tsk1979]

How do you make money?
through change.
What provides the most change?
Instability.
So crisis is always encouraged. When markets collapse, economies collapse, there is a good opportunity to make money,
In a steady safe world, you cannot make money, so they guys always try and keep instability alive

[Samurai]

A very interesting interview related to regulations or lack of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvIM6-BGx8I