Pardon my ignorance,is this US specific (or mostly US)? Why is this stuff allowed?
Erm no. 2008 was directly linked to Greenspan (Fed), Freddie Mac (Federal) and Fannie Mae (Federal), all government run entities, which stopped making proper risk evaluation when issuing loans. That's not deregulation, that's a problem with how these government agencies actually functioned.
https://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/09/10/t...
> If not the boldest of the group, then at least the most public, Greenspan, the man many are now blaming for the housing bubble (there were a brave few that piped up years ago), has refused to go quietly into his well-padded retirement. The man charged with providing the country with a financial voice of reason fell far short, so much so that it might be comical if it weren't so tragic.
> Greenspan's denial of the possibility of a housing bubble has been widely derided in the past year, but a single statement could be excused as human error. However, a quick scan shows that this wasn't a single event. He also promoted the adoption and expansion of adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) products in early 2004, when short-term rates were at or near historic lows. That same year he claimed, "securitization by Fannie and Freddie allows mortgage originators to separate themselves from almost all aspects of risk associated with mortgage lending." And separate themselves they did, ceasing to perform any kind of due diligence as to the ability of borrowers to pay for the homes they were buying.
The FCIC placed significant blame for the crisis on deregulation, reporting: "We conclude widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision proved devastating to the stability of the nation’s financial markets. The sentries were not at their posts, in no small part due to the widely accepted faith in the self-correcting nature of the markets and the ability of financial institutions to effectively police themselves."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_su...
Well sort of yes. But that's first order thinking. The underlying engine that drove those institutions to failure was the deregulation of the banks.
It's the fact that we exist in a middle ground between proper regulation and a proper free market. Either of those, and we'd be able to do fine. As it is, we get the downsides of both.
There will always be an information and power asymmetry between ordinary people/consumers and special interests/corporations.
Sure, people could form consumer rights groups, boycott companies with unconscionable data collection policies, demand a sane and afforable health care system, etc. But people have a limited attention budget. It's just too hard to care about everything, so people don't.
That's also why we don't have proper regulation; if we cared about having a functional, efficient government we would, but we don't really care that much.
With this being the case, more small companies would be able to compete, at least in theory.
That being said, I believe you are correct. It just seems that the only way to improve things is to get to the point where people do think before purchasing, regardless of the state of State.
As far as having an efficient state goes, I would find it more likely that it's not going to happen because those in power have incentive to maintain the current status. It both provides opportunities for corruption and gives an excellent platform to run on.
Important is that you choose which pros and cons you find important.
However, the way things currently stand now in a middle ground appears far from optimal. There is too much lobbying for there to be enough regulation to be effective, but too much regulation for there to be proper competition. While I believe a middle of the road approach could work, in our current circumstance it isn't.
My ideal path would be to go to a complete free market, and rebuild regulation from there. While rebuilding regulation, actually have legislators listen to experts, and ban lobbying. This will never happen of course, but I can dream.
Edit: Make tone less authoritative, because I need to work on that.
Your response is mostly hyperbole, and indicated an axe to grind. You can be against deregulation, but it's not applicable to the question posed.
There were no data gathering laws "dismantled" in the name of "deregulation." You statement is false.
What is happening here is what has always happened: Laws are almost always a step behind technology. Only very rarely are conditions prohibited by legislation before an offense is committed.
GDPR and the California thing are good steps in the right direction, but they're just the landing of a very long staircase. Hopefully we'll get to the top eventually.
It's a mystery to me.
Most HN commenters constantly whine how "data wants to be free" (no IP, no patents, no copyrights...), but when it comes to their own data they act like crony capitalilsts of the worst order and want to enlist the State to help them ensure exclusive, monopolistic rights to that data.
Make up your mind, busybodies!
This “bend your mind”, “drink your own medicine now” wittiness borrowed by the postmodernist crowd is the essence of current alt-right rhetoric.