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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rich4eagle who wrote (214183)	1/3/2002 7:00:58 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The best way to prevent corporate abuse is consumer sovereignty, tight labor markets, and a healthy legal system. However, I am not completely against regulation, especially if it serves the purpose of setting clear rules and reassuring participants of the basic integrity of a particular market. Nevertheless, most regulation is properly left to municipal or state governments, which can tailor them to local circumstances. Federal regulations are appropriate in some instances, of course, for example, in the equities market. I do not believe that balanced budgets are necessarily good. I think that we should budget like businesses, and that frequently, borrowing for capital expenditures is best. I have nothing against environmental regulation, insofar as it sets reasonable standards for air or water quality, for example. I do have a problem with the federalization of every environmental issue; with those environmentalists who are eager to preserve pristine areas, and lock them away against use, rather than balancing interests; and those environmentalists who are willing to paralyze industries, ride roughshod over individual property owners, and engage in dangerous practices (like allowing brush to grow freely, which is a fire hazard) in order to preserve habitat, without regard to common sense. In general, I think that environmentalism has developed a chicken little, sky- is- falling mentality that puts me off. I have no idea what percentage of the defense budget might be fat. I have nothing against trying to eliminate fat. But I do not trust those who are hostile to our military, or isolationist in viewpoint, to decide what is necessary and what is not. Le Monde is the leading French paper. There was more balanced discussion when the thread started. It took awhile to get to this point......