This has to be one of the best comments ever (made to this WSJ opinion piece):
Whenever we've deregulated sectors of the economy, they have always picked up momentum, served more people more efficiently, all while lowering the costs. One example that comes to mind: the airline industry.
All regulation has ever done is to short circuit the market feedback systems, making the regulated sector far less responsive to the needs of the people, more expensive, and closed to competition. In many cases government regulation was sought by 'rent-seekers', those wishing to prevent present or future competitors from expanding there presence within or entering the market. In effect, the government is asked to decide the winners and losers within that particular segment of the economy. Unfortunately the government usually chooses the wrong party to be the winner, all to the detriment of consumers. What makes it worse is that sometimes these winners also receive government subsidies (yet another market-skewing device), hitting the consumers in the wallet again. It's a lose-lose situation for consumer and the economy.
It's about time the government butt out of the economy and let the market decide who wins and who loses. In the long run the consumers and taxpayers will benefit.
It is no accident that the most heavily regulated sectors of the economy cause the most problems: healthcare, finance, energy. Let's admit the failure of the federal regulatory model for most problems, and openly and honestly look for alternative approaches.It always seems to be that way.
Whenever we've deregulated sectors of the economy, they have always picked up momentum, served more people more efficiently, all while lowering the costs. One example that comes to mind: the airline industry.
All regulation has ever done is to short circuit the market feedback systems, making the regulated sector far less responsive to the needs of the people, more expensive, and closed to competition. In many cases government regulation was sought by 'rent-seekers', those wishing to prevent present or future competitors from expanding there presence within or entering the market. In effect, the government is asked to decide the winners and losers within that particular segment of the economy. Unfortunately the government usually chooses the wrong party to be the winner, all to the detriment of consumers. What makes it worse is that sometimes these winners also receive government subsidies (yet another market-skewing device), hitting the consumers in the wallet again. It's a lose-lose situation for consumer and the economy.
It's about time the government butt out of the economy and let the market decide who wins and who loses. In the long run the consumers and taxpayers will benefit.
I'm not finding much of anything about EPA stifling oil company upgrades... I do see articles of people saying that the government is picking on the oil companies unfairly and is thus choosing one industry over another. Personally I'm glad about that, I wish the government would pick and support only renewable energies and stop, for example, all subsidies to oil companies. But alas, the people still care about money and convenience more than they do about the future of this planet and their own health. So I guess in summary, my thoughts on regulations is that they are or were at some point necessary, they may need changes and updates to go with the times (like VOIP example), but I am glad they exist. I do not think the free market is self regulating, nor does it come out with what is best for the people in the long run. I see the government as my line of defense against corporations, and I'd rather it erred on the side of too much regulation than too little.
Delay in response as had to look up this whole telecommunications thing you speak of.
First, I have identified what I believe to be the largest part of the 2007 crisis, and in my opinion it was the derivatives market, where subprime lending was only the begging and was made much much worse by trading, and betting, and the ridiculous triple A ratings. And it is the derivatives market that should have been regulated (and for that matter, the subprime lending).
Second, it is too bad there is a double standard for telecommunications vs cable providers. I do not know enough about it to make any decent argument. Incidentally, it wouldn't hurt if VOIPs were better regulated - example: if I have an emergency and dial 911 but then am unable to speak, the operator has no way of locating me, a problem that I think ought to not exist as it can endanger lives.
Finally, I would love to hear more about this EPA all or nothing problem with oil companies. Could you provide me with some links?
Funny, you and Obama singing the same tune:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/obamas-bogus-explanation-regulation_n_810262.html
On the contrary, the lack of regulation was not the cause, nor is additional regulation the cure for the recession.
If you want a 'villain', then look to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the CRA, which made it possible for people without any possibility of paying a mortgage actually get one for a house they couldn't afford. The first two were heavily regulated and the CRA and follow on lawsuits made the housing bubble and following crash possible.
You mention the EPA, so let me comment: When their regulations make it far less expensive and more attractive for older, less efficient coal and oil-fired power plants to keep polluting rather than allowing them to incrementally update their systems, then there's a regulation problem. With the EPA it's an all or nothing option, so plants opt for nothing. And in regards to fracking, you are citing one instance of something that should at least be looked at.
There are plenty of other case where regulation doesn't work, has never worked, and costs the people a ton of money with nothing to show for it. An example: the telecommunications industry. When two different entities - in this case the telephone companies and the cable TV companies - provide the same services, but operate under entirely different rules, and the rules for telcos are far more restrictive than those for cable companies, how does that help anybody? The telcos have to charge more money for the same services not because they are less efficient but because the regulations say they have to. That makes no sense and stifles competition. In effect, the government has chosen the cable companies over the telcos. The problem? Cable companies aren't required to provide universal service, meaning they aren't required to provide service to anyone wanting it (they can skip portions of communities where they won't make as much profit). The telcos on the other hand are required to provide service. Both industries collect what is called a Universal Service Fee, but only the telcos are required to provide it. It's stupid, it's anti-competition, and it costs the consumers billions.
This argument makes my ears bleed. Surely lack of regulation is the very reason behind the 2007 crisis/recession. Also, on a very personal note, where I live, the entirely unregulated natural gas industry is trying to drill/frack for natural gas. They are exempt from the clean water and air acts, they are not watched over by the EPA, they are entirely self regulating thanks to Bush. Sure they are turning a great profit, but in all the places they have drilled so far, people are dying from the polluted ground water, their water is catching on fire, their property values are so low all they can do is abandon their land. All deregulation is good for is money making, but the quality of life of those involved goes down the toilet.