Michael Retour,

Mr. Byrne has had a series of issues with Wikipedia. You can ready about them in the Wikipedia - A Reminder thread which is one of the stickies on the main forum page. Out of respect for JB, that site isn't used as a reference source.

Getting back to happier things, I look at regulation and deregulation akin to how I look at the Laffer Curve.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Laffer Curve, it was a theory on the generation of tax revenues. Imagine an X / Y axis with a sideways "U" graphed so that the ends of the sideways "U" are touching at 0 and 100 on the vertical Y axis. The vertical Y axis is Tax Rate, while the horizontal X axis is Tax Revenue. The idea is that at a tax rate of either 0 percent or 100 percent you get no revenue (i.e. at 0 percent you're not taxing, at 100 percent no one will work to give it all away in tax). The midpoint of the sideways "U" is the optimal tax rate, where maximum revenue is gained at the lowest possible tax. (As much as I like the Laffer Curve, I always find it interesting that the current tax rate is always assumed to be in the top portion of the sideways "U" and can be reduced to generate more revenue, and never the bottom portion of the sideways "U" where the rate could be increased to optimum.)

So, mapping regulation on the Laffer Curve, my Y axis becomes Regulation and the X axis becomes Economic Performance. At 0 percent regulation and 100 percent regulation, the economy performs equally poorly, either due to chaos in the marketplace or total regulatory control. There is an optimal amount of regulation on the midpoint of that sideways "U" where the economy performs its best. The trick, of course, is finding that optimal point.

Both Democrats and Republicans deregulated finance.  

****************

If you'd bother to read all of this thread, many of us (myself included) said just that. The legislation that was brought to Congress was, however, authored by the Repubs. All the Dems still voted for it, so they're just as accountable. But they didn't write it.

Having said that, what does that have to with Obama? He wasn't a senator then, and had nothing to with the deregulation.

I also fail to see how where he got campaign money from has anything to do with it. Other than you want to be able to make snide comments about him.

William,

The issue isn't so much about Obama per se, but rather Goldman Sachs' ties to government, across both parties. Here's just a quick taste:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2010/04/22/Banks-ties-to-go vernment-could-be-golden/UPI-79571271962938/

When you run through the list of ex-Goldman Sachs employees who've gone on to be in the Federal Reserve System and the US Treasury, there is a lot of Old School Ties so to speak.

Here's a nice chart showing the revolving door:

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2009/10/29/12/20091028_J obs_GOLDMAN.large.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

You seem to be saying that because both Dems and Repubs deregulated and Obama got money from Goldman Sachs, that he won't put stronger regulations on them now.

************************************

I assume you're talking to Mr. Fake Name.

Anyway, Obama did not get money from Goldman Sachs the company.  He did, however, get money from Goldman Sachs employees.  As well as Merrill Lynch employees, Charles Schwab exployees, Fidelity employees, Citigroup exployees, JPMorgan employees......  see a pattern?  OH, as well as doctors, nurses, busboys, waiters....  Yes, so insidious that Obama fella, getting donations from private citizens.

He did collect close to a million dollars in donations from GS employees though.  But, again, all private citizens and not from the company itself.

I think the best course of action is to let it die off. It won't get banned - we saw before (remember Scott Nickel?) - politics threads fly under the rules radar - so it does nothing to keep mentioning the fact that it's fake, and it's just a head-ache to try to interact with it.

Just ignore it. Don't reply. It'll die off on it's own, like a plant without sun and water.