Exactly. The regulation is pointless. The poorly managed banks should have been allowed to go bankrupt rather than given taxpayer bailout money.kiki5711 wrote:And it still didn't stop the banks from stealing bailout money, selling bogus mortgage deals they knew were not as sweet as they made them out to be, etc......etc......A thief will always find a way.One look at the Federal Register debunks that claim. You're just mostly unaware of the tens of thousands of pages of regulations that spew forth from Cass Sunstein and the Obama administration every year.
US Presidential Election, 2016.
- Warren Dew
- Posts: 3781
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
- Location: Somerville, MA, USA
- Contact:
Re: US Presidential Election, 2016.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: US Presidential Election, 2016.
Sure, the marginal tax rate on high income was 91%, but the "effective" tax rate (the rate actually paid, was far lower -- around 30%).Ian wrote:
Go back fifty years and what do you find?
The top income tax rate was 91%. Now it is 35%.
private company -- regulated monopoly. You rented from AT&T, not "the government."Ian wrote: All telephones were owned by the government; people only rented them. Remember Ma Bell?
Good. The systems of price control in effect from the 1950's on had disastrous effects on the natural gas market in the United States. There were toublesome natural gas shortages in the US in the 1970s, especially across the midwest where schools and factories actually shut down due to natural gas shortages. The prices were set artificially low and fixed, but the research and develeopment and the costs of searching for new reserves were variable and high. So, the producers didn't expand to meet the new demand that resulted from the low prices. It was the fucked up policies of 50 years ago that led to the reform of 1978.Ian wrote: The price of natural gas was regulated by Uncle Sam. No longer.
Err... they're regulated now.Ian wrote: All stock trade commissions were regulated. No longer.
They used to set maximum rates of interest under Regulation Q, but they don't anymore, but there are still regulations under Regulation D.Ian wrote: Interest rates on bank accounts were much more regulated. No longer.
LOL - yeah, and before deregulation prices were higher and going on a plane was a rare event for the common person, as it was expensive. Back in the day, when a family member was going somewhere on a plane, the whole family would get dressed up and go to the airport like it was a big deal. Deregulation brought on low air fares -- and it was far easier to get a cheaper flight in the US in the 1990s than it was in the 1970s. And even now, I can fly from Orlando to Newark for a couple of hundred dollars or so. That's about what it cost 40-50 years ago.Ian wrote:
The government regulated all prices and routes for aircraft, freight trains and merchant vessels. No longer.
Sounds good to me.Ian wrote: Military conscription is gone.
Bullshit. There are far more federal regulations now than there ever were.Ian wrote:
There's another way of looking at all this: as far as government regulation goes, you guys don't even realize that you won, and in fact you got your way for decades. However, it's not too far-fetched to say that this pendulum has begun swinging decidedly back towards the left, perhaps for decades to come...
Re: US Presidential Election, 2016.
The Nile is a river in Egypt, Coito. 

-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: US Presidential Election, 2016.
You honestly think we should have conscription?Ian wrote:The Nile is a river in Egypt, Coito.
You think that airline degregulation was a bad thing? I mean, consumer choice went up, prices went down, and air travel went from being a special occasion to as common as taking a bus, and folks could take airplane trips on the spur of the moment.
And look up the natural gas crisis of the mid-1970s. You want that back again? That is what the regulatory scheme of 50 years ago brought us.
Re: US Presidential Election, 2016.
No times three. When did I say all those things were good? Some things, once deregulated, should never go back. But some other things could do with more regulation than they have now. I'm for whatever produces the most good for the most people, and for doing so pragmatically. Thus I don't buy the conservative babble that regulation=bad and that government is naturally an oppressive entity which stifles business to the detriment of people.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: US Presidential Election, 2016.
Well, then what was the point of your list, if not to harken back to the days of 50 years ago with all these wonderful regulations?Ian wrote:No times three. When did I say all those things were good? Some things, once deregulated, should never go back. But some other things could do with more regulation than they have now. I'm for whatever produces the most good for the most people, and for doing so pragmatically. Thus I don't buy the conservative babble that regulation=bad and that government is naturally an oppressive entity which stifles business to the detriment of people.
Regulation isn't per se bad, but the things you listed were pretty bad. AT&T was broken up to disband the monopoly. You want the monopoly back? If not, then why did you list it?
Re: US Presidential Election, 2016.
I wasn't trying to lobby that regulation=good. I was pointing out how many things were regulated two generations ago that we don't even think about anymore - and I used a David Frum article to help me do it. And I was doing so in the context of conservatives (specifically Tea Party rubes) whining about how Obama and the Democrats always want to expand the size of government regulate the country right into socialism. Intelligent, analytical people with some sense of history should know that these are just talking points to rile up the knee-jerk "Obama's-a-Marxist" types like Seth and Warren.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: US Presidential Election, 2016.
No, but you listed these as examples of the good regulations in the good old days, right? If not, then why would you list them?Ian wrote:I wasn't trying to lobby that regulation=good.
Well, the ones you listed seem like it worked out for the better. Except for the commissions, which are still regulated by the SEC.Ian wrote: I was pointing out how many things were regulated two generations ago that we don't even think about anymore.
Well, both sides have talking points and knee-jerk reactions.Ian wrote: And I was doing so in the context of conservatives (specifically Tea Party rubes) always whining about how Obama and the Democrats always want to expand the size of government regulate the country right into socialism. Intelligent, analytical people with some sense of history should know that these are just talking points to rile up the knee-jerk "Obama's-a-Marxist" types like Seth and Warren.
Re: US Presidential Election, 2016.
Stoppit stoppit stoppit. I wasn't listing all of them because I thought they were good. I listed them in order to point out that they they existed. Get it?
Re: US Presidential Election, 2016.
Several decades ago, I might very well have been a Republican. 

-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: US Presidential Election, 2016.
Well, o.k., I guess. But, who was denying they existed? I'm puzzled by the purpose of listing them, if not to suggest that we should return to the good old days of wonderful regulations.
We have regulations today that suck, too. And, the fact that those regulations existed 50 years ago doesn't mean that we have fewer now. We don't have fewer regulations. The Code of Federal Regulations is many times longer now than it was in 1962 -- it's not even close.
It is really not at all debatable that we were more laissez-faire in 1962 than we are now.
We have regulations today that suck, too. And, the fact that those regulations existed 50 years ago doesn't mean that we have fewer now. We don't have fewer regulations. The Code of Federal Regulations is many times longer now than it was in 1962 -- it's not even close.
It is really not at all debatable that we were more laissez-faire in 1962 than we are now.
- Kristie
- Elastigirl
- Posts: 25108
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:14 pm
- About me: From there to here, and here to there, funny things are everywhere!
- Location: Probably at Target
- Contact:
Re: US Presidential Election, 2016.
I think you keep missing the part where he was showing how regulations today are nothing compared to regulations 50 years ago. People keep harping on about how Obama is trying to overregulate everything. He was just showing how there are in fact less regulations today, not more as many would believe. He never once said he wanted the regulations of yesteryear to come back.Coito ergo sum wrote:Well, o.k., I guess. But, who was denying they existed? I'm puzzled by the purpose of listing them, if not to suggest that we should return to the good old days of wonderful regulations.
We have regulations today that suck, too. And, the fact that those regulations existed 50 years ago doesn't mean that we have fewer now. We don't have fewer regulations. The Code of Federal Regulations is many times longer now than it was in 1962 -- it's not even close.
It is really not at all debatable that we were more laissez-faire in 1962 than we are now.
We danced.
Re: US Presidential Election, 2016.
I think it's not very debateable either. In many important ways, we're much more laissez-faire now than we were in 1962.Coito ergo sum wrote:It is really not at all debatable that we were more laissez-faire in 1962 than we are now.
The size of the Code of Federal Regulations is not particularly relevant. I think quality is a more important factor than quantity. Maybe we could discuss Glass-Steagal on one hand and the various federal regulations placed upon auto manufacturers (seat belts, etc.) since the 1960s on the other.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: US Presidential Election, 2016.
But, see, what he listed does not show that, at all. THOSE regulations existed, and they were eliminated, but OTHER regulations have continually grown up in other areas of the economy, and even in the same aspects of the economy but regulating differently.Kristie wrote:I think you keep missing the part where he was showing how regulations today are nothing compared to regulations 50 years ago. People keep harping on about how Obama is trying to overregulate everything. He was just showing how there are in fact less regulations today, not more as many would believe. He never once said he wanted the regulations of yesteryear to come back.Coito ergo sum wrote:Well, o.k., I guess. But, who was denying they existed? I'm puzzled by the purpose of listing them, if not to suggest that we should return to the good old days of wonderful regulations.
We have regulations today that suck, too. And, the fact that those regulations existed 50 years ago doesn't mean that we have fewer now. We don't have fewer regulations. The Code of Federal Regulations is many times longer now than it was in 1962 -- it's not even close.
It is really not at all debatable that we were more laissez-faire in 1962 than we are now.
There is not, in fact, less regulation today. That is what is not even debatable. There is far MORE regulation today. I find it amazing that anyone would even take the position that there "are in fact less regulations today." There have never been fewer federal regulations today -- ever -- we have more now than ever, at any time, int he history of the United States. It's not even close.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: US Presidential Election, 2016.
Yes but "more" regulations is a function of quantity, not quality. Sure, we have a ton of sucky ass regulations today, and maybe they are worse today than before, or maybe they are better today than before. But, one thing is for sure - we have far more regulations today than ever before.Ian wrote:I think it's not very debateable either. In many important ways, we're much more laissez-faire now than we were in 1962.Coito ergo sum wrote:It is really not at all debatable that we were more laissez-faire in 1962 than we are now.
The size of the Code of Federal Regulations is not particularly relevant. I think quality is a more important factor than quantity. Maybe we could discuss Glass-Steagal on one hand and the various federal regulations placed upon auto manufacturers (seat belts, etc.) since the 1960s on the other.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests