> Sometimes we need regulation, otherwise bankers would crash the economy while getting bailouts with taxpayer money...
I honestly can't tell if this is meant to be satire.
I honestly can't tell if this is meant to be satire.
It's not a statement that some people don't argue with, but it doesn't seem to be a question that without Glass-Stegal removal, the 2008 crisis would have not spread as far as it did.
The government stepped in and decided that it would not let a company fail as "the market decided" it should, but instead it should change that outcome and spend money to keep these failed companies running. This is certainly not a case of the market running itself.
Ignoring the massive regulations on banks and inter dependency between banking and fiscal and economic policy for a minute, you might say "oh but the market did run itself and these banks crashed and it would have been bad for society if that were to happen so the government had to step in". But that's how all regulation is justified.
I think that's where the other comments are coming from anyway. But I'm not sure it's entirely fair, because I think it's not unreasonable to say some amount of regulation makes sense to prevent problems that would require more invasive and costly regulation or intervention later.
In other words, heap big regulation bad not mean little regulation bad.
and I get it they want to increase their profit. Even if a company wanted to dispose it properly he won't be able to offer competitive prices if nobody else does it