Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Biddle who wrote (38024)	8/15/1999 12:31:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 152472

John: Since this totally off topic conversation which is meat for the weekend discussion on this thread is now here in its proper place, I will chime in too. As always, Maurice is both perceptive and provocative. He is absolutely right IMO that the key point in the absurd lengths to which applause for Alan Green$pan and "Mr Rubin" have reached (including Maurice's own spirited defense of A. Green$pan here and elsewhere), is that they both have unique unelected appointed positions and their power was derived from politicians - and we have no way to know how well someone else might have done if given their opportunities. But much more important, neither are the reason the economy does well or does not. Influence yes, control no. Thank God the economy depends on millions of individual decisions - people voting with their money. (Thankfully more and more are voting for CDMA and the Q with their money.) And can't remember who said so, but the power to tax and regulate is the power to destroy - even if, in the right hands, it might be marginally useful in rare cases. Note that in politics democracy is messy and inefficient and as Churchill said it is just the best of all the alternatives. (A benevolet dictator may be the most efficient system, but who chooses him/her and even more important who choses his/her successor - there is great danger there) The weakness in regulation, is who chooses the regulators and who do they respond to. In the US the regulations have sadly often been hacks who see their bread buttered by those they regulate and that is reenforced by political contributions to influential politicians in Congress and the Executive Branch. Chaz End of rant - this one at least.

To: John Biddle who wrote (38024)	8/15/1999 8:02:00 PM
From: kanford	Respond to of 152472

John Just thought I would pass on a little thing I remember bout govt regulators. some years ago a gov't car regulator type person gave a talk to my local sports car club in the DC area. He was explaining why the govt was still insisting on the big sealed beam headlights. (This was circa 1976). For those of you who don't remember, at that time if your car headlight burned out you had to replace the whole light unit consisting of the bulb, reflector, and glass front. It was all one piece. Even tho Europeans had been able to replace only the bulb for a few years our gov't insisted on requiring this all be one unit. The reason? Cause what if the glass front had a crack that the owner had not noticed? What if the reflector had gotten tarnished? The bottom line was that it was this guy's job! If he had simply recommended that industry be allowed to do what everyone else in the car industry was doing then he would be killing his job. I will not deny that regulators do some good but often they do little or none. Sometimes they even exceed that and (as I actually read in someone's job appraisal): This individual not only does nothing productive; he also manages to obstruct the work of others.