The article in the link is great. I love it. Here's the article again since I like it so much:
http://skepticblog.org/2008/12/09/regulation-schmegulation/
It's a good read for anyone, especially those that believe market deregulation caused the current financial collapse.
Some points of interest:
The people posting comments want to compare quantity with quality, but it seems they didn't read the part about the Community Reinvestment Act (aka CRA). (The part where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac took on bad mortgages)
Long story short, the CRA was created to stop banks from redlining certain neighborhoods, most of which contained large proportions of minorities. If the banks kept redlining, they would be penalized. Over time, the CRA accumulated more and more crap, as many laws do, and it forced the banks to give mortgages to people that could not afford them. If the banks refused, they would be penalized. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were buying up mortgages anyway, so how could a bank refuse?
The above is an example of regulation. It is not deregulation.
In fact, I would challenge anyone to find a situation where deregulation (again, not like the above regulation) hurt the market.
StumbleUpon has been absolutely full of blogs that call for the cessation of the "deregulation trend." I thought I would add another against that unfounded belief.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
How does the government differ from the mafia?
I'm not being 100% serious here, but I found myself thinking about this in the shower this morning. It humored me a little...
They both offer "protection" as one of their essential services (and both charge and arm and a leg for it).
Both are masters of extortion.
Both have extensive networks to help carry out the special interests of the bigwigs at the top.
Both have connections to certain industries and corporations, and both collude with the said corporations.
The list could just keep going...
But what's the difference?
One's legal, and the other isn't.
They both offer "protection" as one of their essential services (and both charge and arm and a leg for it).
Both are masters of extortion.
Both have extensive networks to help carry out the special interests of the bigwigs at the top.
Both have connections to certain industries and corporations, and both collude with the said corporations.
The list could just keep going...
But what's the difference?
One's legal, and the other isn't.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
FOCA
The "Freedom of Choice Act" has sparked a lot of controversy lately, hasn't it?
It's quite the bill. I'm impressed that it hasn't been filled with pork yet.
Either way, I'm not gonna state an opinion on abortion. I can't have one anyway, so it really doesn't affect me so much. I'm concerned with infringements on everyone else's liberties.
In section four of this bill, a woman is given a right to abortion. Here's a quote:
"Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman." (from the above link)
Now, what's the problem with that?
The word "right."
A right is defined as "A just or legal claim or title." (from Dictionary.com, since I have no other dictionary)
Why would this bother me?
An abortion is not something to which you have an unalienable right. In order to obtain an abortion, you must use up another being's resources. (unless, of course, you're performing an abortion on yourself) No one should have a right to another person's time or money.
So, how does that affect us?
Firstly, this act would allocate federal funding for abortion. That should not be. Why do honest taxpayers need to pay for another person's wants? I want a nice synthesizer, but the government is not allocating money for that.
Secondly, this act could have some serious repercussions for health workers that refuse to perform abortions on any occasion, even if they were morally opposed to the idea of removing the fetus.
In the event that this act makes a doctor's refusal to comply a crime, Catholic bishops have vowed to close down hospitals. That seems like an issue to me.
Regardless of your moral opinion on abortion, it is not a right. Rights are unalienable entitlements. You never have to earn rights. Women have a right to an abortion just as much as I have a right to Bill Gates' money. That wouldn't mean they aren't allowed to have one; it simply means they would have to pay for it (just as if I wanted Bill Gates' money, I would have to somehow earn it from him). No one has the right to force someone to go against their morals either.
Hopefully our lawmakers realize what rights are before this vote...
Either way, off to bed. I'm finally tired.
It's quite the bill. I'm impressed that it hasn't been filled with pork yet.
Either way, I'm not gonna state an opinion on abortion. I can't have one anyway, so it really doesn't affect me so much. I'm concerned with infringements on everyone else's liberties.
In section four of this bill, a woman is given a right to abortion. Here's a quote:
"Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman." (from the above link)
Now, what's the problem with that?
The word "right."
A right is defined as "A just or legal claim or title." (from Dictionary.com, since I have no other dictionary)
Why would this bother me?
An abortion is not something to which you have an unalienable right. In order to obtain an abortion, you must use up another being's resources. (unless, of course, you're performing an abortion on yourself) No one should have a right to another person's time or money.
So, how does that affect us?
Firstly, this act would allocate federal funding for abortion. That should not be. Why do honest taxpayers need to pay for another person's wants? I want a nice synthesizer, but the government is not allocating money for that.
Secondly, this act could have some serious repercussions for health workers that refuse to perform abortions on any occasion, even if they were morally opposed to the idea of removing the fetus.
In the event that this act makes a doctor's refusal to comply a crime, Catholic bishops have vowed to close down hospitals. That seems like an issue to me.
Regardless of your moral opinion on abortion, it is not a right. Rights are unalienable entitlements. You never have to earn rights. Women have a right to an abortion just as much as I have a right to Bill Gates' money. That wouldn't mean they aren't allowed to have one; it simply means they would have to pay for it (just as if I wanted Bill Gates' money, I would have to somehow earn it from him). No one has the right to force someone to go against their morals either.
Hopefully our lawmakers realize what rights are before this vote...
Either way, off to bed. I'm finally tired.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
