More regulations to a certain extent are good, but at some point citizens have to take responsibility for themselves.
The most responsible person in the world would still be taken advantage of at a car dealership if he lacked certain knowledge. You can't educate everyone on every aspect of the economy. Regulation is a necessity, because the regulators are specialized in each particular field. That specialization is needed to see through the mud that's been churned up after decades of an industry doing everything possible to maximize profit.
That's not to say regulations are good, just that there must be balance. I'm okay with a small amount of prophylactic unfairness that goes under the radar of regulating agencies. Such wiggle room is needed in business, where the envelope may have to be pushed. It's not black and white, just like everything in politics, and that's why so many people polarize; they only think in black and white. We need balance, and we are currently unbalanced towards lack of regulation.
That said, and I am not sure I know what I am talking about here, I understood that the US banks were directed or encouraged by government to give subprime mortgages and to make qualification easy, and also, that these were quaranteed by a government supported agency, so the banks did not have to take a loss for default.
So do you blame the government for lack of regulation(to the point of encouraging behavior that should be regulated), or do you blame Wall Street for unleashing the hydra of Lobbyists upon the government, backed by a mountain of cash? Perhaps you could blame over-regulation in the 60's, which is what prompted the organization and power of lobbyists, at the behest of regulated corporations. Perhaps the problem is that people are easily influenced, so that good advertising is the only way to win an election, which means whoever is "supported" the most by donations will win.
The bottom line is that representation is no longer equal. When some people have the ability to donate more money to a campaign, it's as if their vote gets greater weight. Unless there is equal and distributed funding of campaigns, we will only be able to judge the candidates through a biased window. That's no way to be informed of a person's strengths and weaknesses.
Here's a solution. Tell the corporations that they no longer have to suffer the burden of donating to a candidate. The money won't be accepted. Instead, place a very slight tax on corporations over a certain income bracket to be placed into a pool. Money from that pool will be distributed in some fashion to those running for office. I doubt there would be anywhere near enough money. But the idea could be hammered and molded to fit.
And business is regulated, anyone who has been in business can atttest to the reams of regulations, bureaucracy, paperwork etc. Unfortunately, the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of government as a regulator means the regulatory system is clumsy, slow and there are gaps and very high costs attached to development of regulations, compliance and enforcement.
Let's say the regulation in question is sanitation of food factories. Yes, you're absolutely correct that regulation can be frustrating and drastically increase costs. But what costs would increase? Would the meat factory be required to use more fresh meat, rather than meat a day or two old? Would they be required to hire extra cleaning staff to keep the place clean? Would they be "forced" to use safer yet more expensive additives? I remember going through a painful process with the health inspector for a business in Florida, but the hoops he made me jump through all reasonably lead to my business being safer for my future customers. I wouldn't have taken anywhere near the number of precautions before opening if there were no regulations.
Why should we try to achieve 'average' wealth? We don't try to achieve average in other areas of human endeavour.
I don't follow. I think we should aim for the stars. Why would we limit ourselves to an 'ideal' of only average? You may have misunderstood me.
But 'stability' also means its diffcult to make dramatic change because the middle class (numerous and plenty of consumer and voter power) will be defensive of its position and will resist change.
From the ground I'm standing on, I'm hardly defensive. I want to take back territory. I want to go on the offensive. I'm not sure what you mean here either.
