Thursday, July 26, 2012

Phil Gramm says lack of regulation doesn't allow crime, lack of honesty does!

Seriously, which rock did this guy crawl out from under?

Breaking Up Banks Won't Make Them Safer, Ex-Senator Says

ps: he also says that: lack of regulation doesn't allow crime, lack of enforcement does!

ps: ps: don't ask about his position on lack of regulatory funding; that position is still up for sale


Adam1 said...

"...lack of regulation doesn't allow crime, lack of honesty does!"

True for for an individual risking his and maybe a handle full of peoples money. When it gets bigger than that then its stupidity or fraud to not have at least one objective opinion otherwise - enter regulator stage right.

Major_Freedom said...

He's right, because regulating is criminal behavior and regulators are criminals, if by criminal we mean not breaking the law per se, but initiating violence and threats of violence against people.

Even if we take "criminal" to mean disobeying state laws, then it's the age old question: Who will regulate the regulators? More regulation cannot stop crime if the regulators are themselves criminals.

Statesmen are becoming more and more lawless everyday. Flagrantly violating constitutional law with impunity. Violating one or more of the 100,000 pages of laws in the Federal Register.

Monopolies are prone to decreasing quality and increasing costs. Virtually every economist will tell you this.

Regulation monopolies are no different. Regulation needs competition to avoid the tendency of decreasing quality and increasing costs.

Imagine yourself as a grocer acquiring a country wide monopoly over food production. Sure, at first, you as an individual who grew up in a competitive food production market might put in a good effort at first. But over time, the presence of the lack of competition incentives, will give you an incentive to decrease the quality of the food you produce, and increase the costs. After all, you screw up, and you can continue doing what you're doing.

Even if you're replaced, then there would be a lack of this incentive for the next person too. And so on.

Abolishing monopolies in computer software tends to improve the quality of computer software and decrease the costs of computer software over time. This is because there are competitive incentives present.

Well, abolishing monopolies in regulation will also tend to improve the quality of regulation and decrease the costs of regulation over time.

Hopefully one day while I am alive people will learn to stop divorcing some services and commodities from economic science.