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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (11930)	5/3/2002 3:52:58 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Of course, as I noted, some public agencies are worth having. You have still not made a very convincing case for an effective substitute for market discipline in the public sector. Also, mentioning bankruptcies is a red- herring. The difference is that those businesses that can't cut it go out of business, while public agencies continue to be subsidized, often at higher levels for perceived failure. Also, the real reason for some of these public agencies is different then the ostensible or even originating reason. In many instances, the original reformers move on, and a regulatory agency comes to be dominated by the industry it oversees. What happens is simple: the agency becomes a vehicle for cartelization. Practices that would be illegal if done privately, like price fixing, are praised under cover of public service. In the case of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the primary purpose is not to prevent unfair dealing, but to increase public confidence in the stock market, to keep participation robust. The actual oversight is fairly token, mainly relying on self- reporting.