logo

U.S. PIRG Consumer Blog

« New York air passenger rights law knocked down on preemption grounds | Main | KPMG allowed fraud at lender New Century; Paulson calls for MORE regulation of investment banks »

March 26, 2008

Economist debate on risk: "It's the government's fault" side winning

UPDATE: Sorry, I had a bad link to my own comments. We're beaten the numbers down to 52% against regulation/48% for- still time to vote.economist_logo.pngWell, these online debates (previous blog) are not scientific. We all know that. The anti-government libertarian view is prevailing 54-46 in an online debate over at The Economist over risk and regulation. I am a "featured participant" and now that my http://www.economist.com/debate/index.cfm?action=article&debate_id=6&story_id=10833860> rebuttal comments have been posted, perhaps the numbers will change. But you need to vote. Excerpt from my rebuttal of the statement By intervening to regulate business and financial risks, government has made things worse:

It is years of governmental indifference fueled by the demands of special interests—not government intervention—that have led to the current economic and health and safety crises...Had the government intervened earlier in the housing bubble, and established enforceable rules to hold companies on Wall Street accountable when they bought and securitised questionable loans, we would be better off. Instead, it turns out that we replaced firewalls with flashpoints and accelerants, making things worse. Meanwhile, despite the turmoil in the US economy, a large contingent of K St lawyers is being paid handsomely to keep the government’s hands off unregulated hedge funds. The moral hazard of allowing largely unregulated financial firms to become too big to fail is one that the government must respond to.

Posted by Ed Mierzwinski at March 26, 2008 06:21 AM


Comments

Post a comment




Remember Me?



218 D. Street, SE Washington, DC 20003
Phone (202) 546-9707

E-mail: