It could be an interesting circular argument about whether regulation was the problem or the solution. I've always leaned more toward free markets IF indeed the markets found ways to fully load the cost and impact of goods and behaviors. That sort of thing seems to require either truly minimal regulation (only safety laws and ones that account for costs like environmental impact) or vigorous regulation (if the government dictates certain activity, it should fully monitor that activity within set constraints and without outside influence). If you live with no rules, you have to be prepared to die with no rules, or if you live with the rules, you have to live within the rules.
If we accept that the sub-primes were a serious turning point and genesis of the current problem, it was the federal government trying to artificially stimulate loans to the unqualified - ie. "regulation" - the was part of the cause. Hmm, I wonder what cunts urged that? Their own idea or the industry/lobbyists? It's now the feds trying to come in and offer a bailout (and additional regulation) to fix the problem. The government seems to win no matter what. Lobbying would seem to compound the problem if that turns the regulators into influenceable stakeholders as well - the proverbial fox with the keys to the chicken coop.
It's weird that conservatives would typically argue for freer markets and less regulation and government, then lean to supporting things like oil subsidies and military adventurism. Also fucking weird that liberals would argue for more government then not have any discipline to actually govern. It's the absolute worst of both worlds. I guess what bothers me is that we're not hearing about what's next? After the bailout, do we go back to more regulation or less regulation? Do we eliminate the effect of bad influencers like lobbyists who tend to contribute to bad behavior? Is there anybody in charge who can offer a comprehensive vision?? (I'm not expecting an answer)
