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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (229561)	11/19/2009 10:56:27 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

government intervention has been happening for many years. the bubble (whichever bubble you choose to talk about) was caused by government intervention. so, yes, I do think things would be very different.

To: neolib who wrote (229561)	11/20/2009 10:22:50 AM
From: Reilly Diefenbach	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

neolib, I think that the way that you're looking at this, you are equating "better regulation" with what would actually be non-corrupt regulation. As you increase the number of regulators, you increase the opportunities for interested parties to get involved. Too often, there are rules in place to prevent problems, but if the regulator's agenda has been hijacked by an interested party. See the performance of the SEC over the last few years for an example. It also seems obvious to me that the more rules there are and as the complexity of those rules increase, it creates more opportunities to corrupt the system. You have to have rules and policemen. The simpler the rules and the more straightforward the policeman's job is, the fewer opportunities will exist for corruption to take place. I don't know what else the Glass-Steagal Act might have stated other than separating investment and commercial banks. That was a simple, easily enforcible and interpretable rule and it seems to have worked. Regards, Reilly