Incomprehensible laws and 'we, the people'

Home » Opinion » Letters To The Editor

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Comment

Dear editor, On Saturday, Oct. 10, page A4 of the Napa Valley Register, there appeared an Associated Press piece by Erica Werner, titled, "Read the health bill? It's not that easy."

How frightening for us to discover that our "representatives" routinely vote into law various mandates affecting our persons without ever knowing or understanding the content, or its constitutionality. Since the legalese and cross-referencing contained in these documents are too much for a simple politician to grasp, their solution is to hire a legal staff (at taxpayer expense) to advise them on how to vote. Then, the question arises: Who actually writes the bills presented for vote, and what is their agenda? Are they unduly influenced by lobbyists? Do they have the good of the country in mind? This behavior can be compared to what went on in the lending of home mortgages to those who had no idea what they were signing in the way of future interest rates, balloon payments or penalties. They were reassured by unscrupulous bankers that it was no problem at all, no need to read that legal stuff! We were promised "transparency in government." I do not see this happening so far.

Wouldn't it make sense, instead of taking the direction of unelected hirelings, to just simplify the content of proposed legislation so all of us would know what it says? My advice is, if you don't understand it, vote no. If its motive is worthy, rewrite it in a comprehensive way. As Americans who believe in the freedom granted us by our Constitution, it is our duty to again take charge of our government, which has gone so far astray. It is not too late for "we, the people" to pay close attention and get actively involved. As the proverbial "sleeping giant" we must wake to the challenge of restoring and protecting the rights and liberties so dear to us.

Martha Blackard / Napa

48 comment(s)

kevin wrote on Nov 4, 2009 4:57 AM:

" Martha has stumbled on the "dirty little secret" of our government: Congress is made up of LAWYERS, who write laws to promote LAWYERS; laws that get adjucated by other LAWYERS.

Stop electing lawyers! "

Raven wrote on Nov 4, 2009 5:48 AM:

" Actually Martha it is quite easy...you download the bill and read it...seems quite transparent?..and what rights have you lost that need restoring Martha?

Why is to okay for the ceo of a company to hire someone to help them the complex issues they face in running a business but not okay for a representative to hire a staff to do the same for him or her?

Peopel need to realize the days of coming in off the farm, or from the store, staying for a week or two and then returning are long gone..our world is much more complex than it was then...get used to it..

It is an amazing thing that people expect simple solutions to complex issues,do you really expect it to be done in 5 or 6 pages? (not to mention the assumption that if you can't understand it, your representative cant possibly either) "

antipc wrote on Nov 4, 2009 6:11 AM:

" Gold star & a smiley face for Martha.

It's always the fine print that causes the problems. The down the road consequences of every democrat sponsored health bill would cripple this country beyond repair. "

Nik wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:50 AM:

" Raven,

You obviously have never read or tried to read a bill. In a 1500 page bill, at least on every page is a reference to 3 other bills that you need to go read. Soooo, to fully understand the bill, you have about 100,000 pages to go read.

Even Charles Rangel (A Democrat Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee) Said: "Everyone says READ the Bill. What use is it to read the bill when it takes 2 days and 2 lawyers to do it."

So Raven, if the politicians can't even read / understand the bill, then how are we supposed to?

In addition, look at all these 1000 to 2000 page bills coming out. Do you honestly think a 1500 page bill finalized at 2am in the morning and then voted upon at 2pm the next day was properly read and understood?

One more Gold Star for Martha. "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:54 AM:

" "do you really expect it to be done in 5 or 6 pages? "

Raven, there is a big difference between merely complex and incomprehensible. The latest House Bill, mired in intentional misdirection, that creates as many as 111 new administrative bureaucracies (unelected and yet to be formed), is absurd. Our entire government was designed with far less.

Brevity is the soul of wit. "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 4, 2009 9:09 AM:

" Raven,

You are right in one respect: the health care challenge is complex. Five or six pages of legislation can certainly not solve the problems. 2000 pages of legislation cannot solve them.

In fact, 200,000 or 2,000,000 pages of Federal Code could not possibly create efficiencies in the system. Consuming 1/6 of our economy and effecting more than 300,000,000 people, efficient health care requires that millions of researched, informed decisions be made every day by doctors, patients, hospitals, nurses, researchers, drug and device companies, insurers, employers and families. It is the only way effciency in healthcare can be achieved.

And every word of Federal Code makes those daily decisions more difficult to make. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 4, 2009 10:42 AM:

" There's no way complex law can be written simply.

There’s a solution, however: Pass a law that only lawyers can be elected to public office.

I'm KIDDING. It's just a joke.

Really, though, if we the people are the governors as well as the governed, it follows that as governors we’ll often be in over our heads in understanding complex public policy and law. That's why we have lawyers. And lawyers are hired by public officials who know their backgrounds, their ethics, and their ability to make objective analyses of law. Which do we trust -- a simplified "law" that has no teeth, no cross-referencing to other laws, and no effectiveness whatsoever as a law; or legislation that takes into consideration circumstances and permutations, and complexities of existing law. Wasn't a criticism of the early bill that it didn't have specific enough language to make sure undocumented workers weren't provided free health care? Wasn't Obama called a liar because every possibility for "illegals" to get free health care wasn't adequately pre-empted?

So how is a simple outline of a law going to address that? What the writer calls "unelected hirelings" are the experts we all need to consult to understand anything as necessarily complex as legislation.
"Brevity is the soul of wit." I like that, Mr4. But health care reform law isn't a stand-up comedian.

"Our entire government was designed with far less."

Yes, and look how much disagreement there has always been over what the document forming our government really means. And look at how many lawyers, District Courts and Supreme Court Justices it has taken and will take to interpret it, in perpetuity. "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 4, 2009 1:03 PM:

" "Yes, and look how much disagreement there has always been over what the document forming our government really means. And look at how many lawyers, District Courts and Supreme Court Justices it has taken and will take to interpret it, in perpetuity."

Do you naively believe that every word of the upcoming legislation, along with every word of the hundreds of thousands of pages of subsequent administrative laws written by the 111 new administrative agencies will not be repeatedly litigated "in perpetuity"?

This may be the greatest attorney employment Act in the history of man. "

freeport56 wrote on Nov 4, 2009 2:30 PM:

" Martha makes a great point. If this truely was a reform bill cover REAL REFORM, it would be in the form of several bills or an omni-bus bill.

But, this is not a reform bill, it is another attempt to secure by the government of the entire health care industry. Both Mr4 and some of Della's points are accurate. just one point Della, they are not all experts on those panels as per the bill. Most willbe made up from the community dictating what they want and when.

The bill and concept are a flat out mess. I would rather see them reform the current system first. After their failures with Cash for Clunkers ($24,000.00 per vehicle) and this H1N1 vaccine mess (Detainees over school kids). Barry and the libs do not have my highest confidence in their ability to do the job.

Maybe when some of them are unemployed next year. "

Hear Ye wrote on Nov 4, 2009 4:28 PM:

" Ha It figures that the Republicans would vote against funding more H1N1 vaccine and then try to blame a shortage on someone else. Pathetic. "

kevin wrote on Nov 4, 2009 6:18 PM:

" "The shortage of swine-flu vaccine results not from drug- company greed or outsize demand but almost entirely from the government's decision to pander to unfounded and unscientific fear.

As The Wall Street Journal reported last week, the US government set out to have the H1N1 vaccine produced largely in single-dose syringes -- a demand that has set back production considerably, because multidose vials are far easier to make.

And the only reason to seek single-dose production was to please people needlessly worried about the preservative thimerasol, which is used to provide multiple doses of the vaccine. The fear -- utterly groundless and repeatedly debunked is that thimerasol can cause autism and other neurological disorders in infants and other young children.

If not for that decision, we'd have more than enough vaccine. Instead, because the government yielded to pressure from antivaccine fringe groups, we're behind the curve on protecting millions of children from swine flu."

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/why_you_can_get_swine_flu_vaccine_GTHq2q7i8HeBQzyG4tQYLJ#ixzz0VwnzndUY "

Raven wrote on Nov 4, 2009 6:57 PM:

" Nik...just because something is difficult doesn't mean you shouldn't do it...and that include Rangel, and the democrat house bill, released last week has yet to be voted on

Mr4...111 new administrative bureaucracies .... and that is where? where are all these 'new' agencies located in either bill?

brevity is the soul of wit....

Do you want a witty bill or one that does the job? I contend that a complicated issue cannot be solved one or two page document and sorry but anyone who thinks so is, in my opinion, hopelessly naive..

freeport what make you think this isn't an omni-bus bill...just becuase it doesnt the word in the title? "

Hear Ye wrote on Nov 4, 2009 7:58 PM:

" well assuming that opinion piece is factual then we can blame the Republicans and the anti vaccine groups. Great. "

Tim wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:05 PM:

" Download the bill and read it??? I tried it and here was my favorite part so far, on page 307...

SEC. 1153. HOME HEALTH PAYMENT UPDATE FOR 2010.
Section 1895(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395fff(b)(3)(B)(ii)) is amended—
(1) in subclause (IV), by striking ‘‘and’’;
(2) by redesignating subclause (V) as subclause
(VII); and
(3) by inserting after subclause (IV) the fol
lowing new subclauses:
‘‘(V) 2007, 2008, and 2009, sub22
ject to clause (v), the home health
market basket percentage increase;
‘‘(VI) 2010, subject to clause (v),
0 percent; and’’.

probably 1/3 of the bill is similar verbage. "

Raven wrote on Nov 5, 2009 8:11 AM:

" never said it was an easy read Tim but you are on the right track ... but when you are changing clauses of previous passed laws you have to be specific.... "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 5, 2009 8:15 AM:

" Raven,

The flaw in your logic is that you continue to believe that a central government can run a complex economy. History has conclusively shown us that central governments cannot even effectively manage simple economies.

American health care is arguably the most complex, intertwined industry on earth. Every government action will produce dozens, if not hundreds of unintended reactions. And jibberish such as that shown by Tim, above, will certainly make things more complex and confused. The result will be higher cost, fewer and degraded services, and a bureaucratic black hole that will make the Soviet bureaucracies of the past look like a picnic. "

Tim wrote on Nov 5, 2009 11:40 PM:

" Well yes, reading it is quite easy...understanding what I am reading is an impossibility...how can anyone with a clear conscience vote for something they cannot understand? "

Raven wrote on Nov 6, 2009 2:16 PM:

" and history has shown more recently that leaving the economy to the 'business' world doesn't work either, Mr 4...

keep trying Tim, understanding will come... "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 5:04 PM:

" Capitalism is not without its problems. When a capitalist makes bad decisions it can result in the failure of his business. But as an individual business within a free market, such failures tend to be isolated and have little impact on the economy at large. Only mistakes made by a centralized government can affect entire economies — often with catastrophic result.

http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2009/01/19/opinion/commentary/doc49741c0859392421166029.txt

It wasn't the business world that failed, Raven "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Nov 7, 2009 10:52 AM:

" Mr4 writes, "It wasn't the business world that failed..."

Ha!

It was Big Government that came to the rescue when the business world crashed during the autumn of 2008.

Big Business begged for handouts from Big Government in 2008. (They always have and---apparently---always will!)

The ramifications of the business world's failures are being felt worldwide. Free marketeers and their parrots are largely responsible for the economic pandemic now being experienced on every continent. The economic crisis is actually causing a rise in death rates due to malnutrition and disease in some poverty-stricken countries.

There is no free market. There is a need for government regulation. Big Government is necessary to counter the ills caused when Big Business runs amok. Government can and ought to protect citizens from unscrupulous capitalists. "

Raven wrote on Nov 7, 2009 4:58 PM:

" so what world was asking for the bailout funds? "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 5:36 PM:

" "The ramifications of the business world's failures are being felt worldwide"

Madison,

Let me help you get things in perspective:

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, capitalist efforts in formerly centrally planned economies have added more than 600,000,000 jobs to international export markets. Yes, that's right, 600 million! The entire number of people employed in the United States is only 132 million (down almost 8 million in the last year - ha!, isn't that about when you state that BG came to the rescue?). Capitalist efforts abroad have moved people from agrarian jobs to industry and technology in a huge way.

And as our current government continues it's attack on American business, the world laughs! Even with fewer American customers, foreign companies (especially China) continue to grow at an astonishing rate!

This administration is going in exactly the wrong direction at exactly the wrong time. "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 10, 2009 8:47 PM:

" Raven :

Count 'em

http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/09/11/02/new-federal-bureaucracies-created-in

And please don't bore us with nit-picking about the definitional differences between an agency and a bureaucracy "

Raven wrote on Nov 11, 2009 1:09 PM:

" do you think the GOP wasn't nit-picking when they posted that list to their web site....

Most are simply new duties assigned to existing offices...is that nitpicking?...the devil's in the details. "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 11, 2009 3:55 PM:

" I knew you couldn't resist. See my response under the "Spineless Democrats" string. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Nov 11, 2009 11:35 PM:

" The health insurance industry is in need of more regulations and regulators! The end result of free market activity is monopoly. Regulation seeks to add a measure of fairness to the market. The free market will allow for one person to be wealthy while all others remain poor. Regulation seeks to insure that all who participate in a market obtain the necessities for survival. Those who advocate for an end to regulation call for a new feudal era, a society of few "haves" and many "have nots." The exemptions to anti-trust legislation now enjoyed by the health insurance industry ought to expire. The health insurance industry is in need of more regulation, not less! "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 13, 2009 2:22 PM:

" "The end result of free market activity is monopoly"

Really, Madison? Name one. You can't do it.

I thought we already beat this to death in another string. Maybe you were not on it.

While you are completely wrong on the issue of monopoly, I do understand your concern with the perceived increasing separation between the "haves" and "have nots".

In the short term, the "creative destruction" of capitalism creates winners and losers. It can be stressful. When a new company develops a better widget than an old company, the old company loses. They are forced to either change for the better or go out of business. It can cause short-term hardship. And those who are slow to evolve in this impersonal world of the free market become the "have nots" that you seek to protect. But in the end, the entire society thrives.

Your motive is pure, but your understanding of economics needs a little work.

In the long term, history has clearly shown the world that the creative destruction process of market capitalism raises the standard of living of all. As an example, the "have-nots" in West Germany lived like kings compared to the citizens of East Germany. More recently, one need only look at Korea for a similar comparison.

This is not about our archaic anti-trust laws or lack thereof. The primary anti-competitive nature of insurance is 100% government created. This is a fundamental battle over how we will run health care in America. Do we settle for the mediocre result of central planning or do we alllow the free market to deliver its miracles?

Margaret Thatcher on point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Nov 14, 2009 10:01 AM:

" A free market can't exist without equality of opportunity and law. Right now, neither conditions exist in the U.S. Many large corporations have legal advantages that prevent competitors from flourishing. In the business world, size matters!

Capitalists hate competition. It's not surprising that many unscrupulous business owners choose to use any means at their disposal (legal and illegal) to achieve their ends. Free marketeers often complain about government interference. Ironically, civil courts have long been a tool used by large corporations to cripple competitors.

To a significant degree, the American Revolution began as a revolt against the monopolistic practices of the British East India Company.

Perhaps the most famous monopoly in U.S. history is John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil.

AT&T, the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa), and U.S. Steel are among the many corporations subject to government scrutiny due to their efforts to dominate sectors of the American economy.

During the Progressive Era, Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Howard Taft were both lauded and/or vilified for their trust-busting efforts.

During the Reagan Revolution (1980-2008), a new era of mergers and consolidation among large corporations occurred. Toleration of "merger mania" has hurt the U.S. economy.

Evidence of corporations "too big to fail" is enough for me to conclude that there is no free market in the U.S. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Nov 14, 2009 12:15 PM:

" May I cite one more example?

In 1892, the American Sugar Refining Company controlled 98% of the sugar refineries in the U.S.

Check out the 1895 Supreme Court decision "United States v. E. C. Knight Company" to get an idea of just how difficult it has been for citizens to promote fair trade in the United States.

(I could cite other examples, ad nauseum.) "

anticommie wrote on Nov 14, 2009 3:20 PM:

" Martha:

This bill is just like every other pork filled piece of garbage the Congress usually passes. This bill is not about what is best for this country, but rather pushing a liberal agenda on the country. When bills are proposed in Congress the plan of the people proposing it is getting the votes to pass it. In order to get the votes each voting congressman is going to want to add just a little to it to get their soundbite for their "constituents." This is mulitplied by how many times? That is why this monstrosity 2,000 page bill is a joke. The Democrat leadership forced this to a vote with only 72 hours for the public and the House to deliberate and interpret. NO ONE could possibly know everything that was in the bill. Every member of the house that voted for this ludicrous bill did a huge disfavor to this country. "Liberal fascism" is alive and well in this country, Jonah Goldberg is correct. "

Raven wrote on Nov 14, 2009 5:57 PM:

" "The Democrat leadership forced this to a vote with only 72 hours for the public and the House to deliberate and interpret.."

the bill was introduced on Oct 29 and voted upon on Saturday, Nov 7...how many hours was that? "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Nov 14, 2009 6:37 PM:

" If one thinks the healthcare bill is expensive, take a look at this year's defense bill! Over the next ten years, the U.S. is planning on spending six times more on defense than on healthcare.

Has anybody read all the pages of this year's defense budget? How many pages are in it? How do the teabaggers feel about President Obama's support for increased defense spending? Do fiscal conservatives care about money possibly being wasted by the Pentagon?

Perhaps somebody ought to start reading the current defense budget. Every word. Otherwise, how can one have an opinion about it? Who knows what "pork" is hidden within its pages! "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 14, 2009 10:26 PM:

" Madison,

You're cracking me up!

How about trying something from this century!

So far you haven't named a single monopoly. The closest you came was Alcoa, so let's have a better look: Alcoa produced aluminum more efficiently than anyone else on the planet. As a result, competitors mostly decided to stay away from that particular metal. They went with steel, copper, etc. And all during the time that Alcoa had a dominant market share, the price of aluminum dropped precipitously, thus helping introduce a new metal to the magnificent benefit of all mankind.

As to your other silly examples, I don't have the space to adequately reply. It appears that you have succumbed to the revisionist history of taught by recent public education, viewing the industrial revolution and its heroes as a bad thing. You view true American heroes such as John Rockefeller, JP Morgan and Andrew Carnegie as "robber barons" rather than the geniuses that they were - who did more to raise the standard of living of mankind than any other men who ever lived.

Here is an article you should read:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/witch-hunting-for-robber-barons-the-standard-oil-story/#

ad nauseum indeed! "

glenroy wrote on Nov 15, 2009 9:01 AM:

" Madison…. Uh…I think you need a new calculator and switch from Moveon.

The Federal government spends way more on health now than on defense ….the trick is can a liberal find it in the budget?

The Dept of Health represents just a fraction of what is spent….a very small fraction. "

Raven wrote on Nov 15, 2009 9:55 AM:

" yeah they did so much for the US that solid GOP presidents like Roosevelt and Taft broke up the trusts...and yes they did raise the standard of living...for the Rockefellers and the Morgans, for who the term conspicuous consumption was invented... "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Nov 15, 2009 10:03 AM:

" AT&T was widely considered a natural monopoly until it was divided into several companies during the 1980s. President Ronald Reagan supported the reorganization of AT&T while "United States v. AT&T" was being litigated.

I wish that President Reagan had more fiercely and widely supported enforcement of anti-trust legislation during the 1980s. During the 1990s, I wish that President Clinton had done so.

Mr4 mentions JP Morgan. I would like to know more about JP Morgan. I've not mentioned him in any of my comments.

I'm curious to know how Mr4 defines the term "robber barons." It must be an important term, as Mr4 places the term within quotation marks. "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 15, 2009 5:59 PM:

" Madison,

If you go to the Rhine River in Germany you will see several narrow sections with steep canyon walls - often with a castle (schloss) dominating the river section. In the middle ages, feudal lords (the Robber Barons) abused their authority and exacted tolls from those traveling the river.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Robber:baron.htm

The term is now being taught in our schools to describe the captains of industry of the Industrial Revolution. Check any Vintage High Government class text- you will see it. Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan are the usual villains in this revisionist history.

Regarding Morgan, you mentioned US Steel. JP Morgan and Andrew Carnegie (along with Charles Schwab) are the founders of the company.

Your original statement was:

"The end result of free market activity is monopoly"

Yet the only alleged monopoly you mention within the last century is AT&T - which you refer to as a "natural" monopoly. A natural monopoly is not created by free market activity - it is usually an infrastructure component that is prohibitively expensive to duplicate, so it lends itself to a single (monopoly) owner. Examples are interstate highways, and early power grids and long-distance carriers. AT&T was the latter, but it was never a monopoly.

The free market did far more to diversify the telephone industry than the court-ordered breakup of AT&T. Ever heard of a cellphone? The anti-trust laws of the 1800s are not only archaic, but they were based on misinformation in the first place.

Please read Alan Greenspan's essay on the subject (it includes a section on ALCOA):

http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/12/12/interrupting-the-election-coverage-alan-greenspan-on-antitrust-circa-1961/ "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 15, 2009 10:47 PM:

" Why is all this relevant?

Because the populists promoting this massive government health care plan are operating under the premise that market capitalism has failed us. They are operating on misinformation such as that demonstrated by Madison, above.

They are wrong.

To paraphrase Churchill, capitalism may be the worst form of economic distribution except all the others that have been tried. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Nov 16, 2009 12:02 AM:

" Earlier in this comment thread, I was challenged to name one monopoly. I cited six. I recognize that there are ideologues among us who don't believe that monopolies have ever existed. I also recognize that there are ideologues among us who don't believe that government has the right or ability to regulate the economy. I contend that it would be those ideologues who hold revisionist views.

Since the beginning of the current financial crisis, the ranks of free marketeers has dwindled considerably. Even disciples of Ayn Rand, such as Alan Greenspan, have been willing to concede that their adherence to free market ideology prevented them from forecasting the current economic recession.

I have heard of cell phones. The development of cell phone technology occurred while the U.S. government allowed AT&T an exemption from anti-trust laws due to its recoognized status as a natural monopoly. The development of cell phones occurred before the division of AT&T. There was no free market in the telephone industry when such phones were first widely introduced.

I await arguments against the eight hour day, minimum wage laws, child labor laws, environmental laws, the existence of a national park system, and/or a harangue against the Meat Inspection Act of 1906! "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Nov 16, 2009 3:55 PM:

" Why paraphrase Winston Churchill when one can offer a quotation!

"The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear. Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the same way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion. Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available."
---Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill was a strong supporter of single-payer, not-for-profit, government-run health care! "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 17, 2009 6:18 AM:

" Churchill was a hero in the fight against Nazi Germany. But look what happened to Great Britain since!

With their adoption of post-war Fabian socialism, Great Britain, once the most powerful country on earth, could not hold a candle to the LOSERS of WWII - Japan and Germany. Their economies surpassed passed Great Britain dramatically in every way.

Not exactly something to be proud of. "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 17, 2009 7:24 AM:

" And regarding the monopolies, not only did you not name any market-created monopolies, you failed to demonstrate any negative consequences of those old companies that had dominant market shares.

The Marxist theory holds that monopolists will restrict supply and gouge on price, but in every one of the examples you site, that did not happen. Supply went up and prices went down. And in every instance, competitors were free to compete and eventually eroded the market share of these dominant companies. The market worked!

While you attempt to disparage Alan Greenspan by inferring that an association with Ayn Rand is somehow bad, I remind you that he was an invaluable economic advisor to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. And as chairman of the Federal reserve, he helped maintain the most stable, successful economy in history.

Re AT&T, it was deregulation that started with Ford and was continued by Carter that led to its break-up. Before that, it's market position (monopoly)was maintained by govenment regulation that prohibited competitors. "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 17, 2009 8:14 AM:

" "Even disciples of Ayn Rand, such as Alan Greenspan, have been willing to concede that their adherence to free market ideology prevented them from forecasting the current economic recession."

Final point on Greenspan: You mis-state Greenspan. He never made the statement that you claim. He is as staunch an advocate of market capitalism today as he has ever been. In his recent book, "The Age of Turbulence" Greenspan specifically discusses the business cycles - booms and busts, exhuberence and fear - and how the market does such a fantastic job of stabilizing itself. He also specifically discusses how populist governmental intervention prohibits the market from working properly. You would do well to read this book. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Nov 17, 2009 4:02 PM:

" In October of 2008, while testifying before Congress, Alan Greenspan said, ""I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms." Greenspan's comment is widely viewed as a repudiation of his faith in the free market model.

On the same day, when referring to the free market economic model in which he had "faith" for so many years, Greenspan said, "I have found a flaw." About that flaw, he said, "I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact."

Did Greenspan "mis-state" Greenspan?

During the 1920s, faith in free market economics led to the Great Depression. During the 1980s, faith in free market economics led to the Savings and Loan Crisis. During the 1990s, faith in the free market led to the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the current financial crisis.

Great Britain might have helped defeat Nazi Germany, but they bankrupted themselves in the process. After WWII, Britain no longer had the financial and military clout with which to carry out its imperialistic policies. Its former colonies gained independence. Britain no longer benefited from the systematic looting of colonial possessions around the world.

Germany and Japan thrived in the postwar era because they didn't finance the Cold War. (Germany and Japan both have better healthcare systems than the U.S. Germans and Japanese spend less on healthcare than do Americans. Germans and Japanese are healthier than Americans.)

It's a shame that this comment thread will too soon expire. C'mon, Mr4. Keep commenting! Bring it! "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 17, 2009 8:03 PM:

" "Did Greenspan "mis-state" Greenspan?"

No Madison, you did. You misquoted him again - taking that statement completely out of context. Greenspan was surprised that the banks got caught up in the underpricing of risk created by the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle (risky credit offered at too low an interest rate). They did not adequately protect themselves. But it was the government action behind Fannie and Freddie that caused the bubble - not the Free Market.

You are taking a man's consistent work and unwavering writings of five decades and judging it by a single sound bite taken out of context by a witch hunting Congressional hearing and a leftist newspaper report (the NY Times). How pathetic is that?

Here is his testimony. Read it instead of the New York Times report of his testimony.

http://clipsandcomment.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/greenspan-testimony-20081023.pdf

Likewise, your comments about the 20's, 80's, 90's and Great Britain are simply wrong.

Read Greenspan and the references I gave you. Maybe then you can intelligently express an opinion on the subject. Until then, you are simply regurgitating MSNBC.

I'll bring it all day long!

By the way, did you give up on the monopoly argument? "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 17, 2009 10:43 PM:

" From Greenspan's book:

"It is not uncommon to see legislators and regulators rush to promulgate new laws and rules in response to market breakdowns, and the mistakes that result often take decades to correct. I had long argued that the Glass-Steagall Act, which in 1933 separated the business of securities underwriting from commercial banking, was based on faulty history. Testimony before Congress in 1933 was filled with anecdotes that gave the impression that inappropriate use by banks of their securities affiliates was undermining overall soundness. Only after World War II, when computers made it possible to evaluate the banking system as a whole, did it become evident that banks with securities affiliates had weathered the 1930's crises better than those without affiliates. A few months before I took up my duties at the Fed, the Board introduced a proposal that would again allow banks to sell securities through affiliates, under restrictive conditions. The Board continued to encourage easing of restrictions, and I testified many times for legislative change. It took until 1999 for Glass-Steagall to be repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Fortunately, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which restored sorely needed flexibility to the financial industries, is no aberration. Awareness of the detrimental effects of excessive regulation and the need for economic adaptability has advanced substantially in recent years. We dare not go back."

The Age of Turbulence pp. 375-76 "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Nov 18, 2009 4:17 PM:

" Mr4 writes, "as chairman of the Federal reserve, he helped maintain the most stable, successful economy in history."

That's not even close to being true.

It was during the time during which the U.S. economy was regulated most strictly that the country's middle class enjoyed its most successful and stable period: the time from WWII's end to 1980. During the Reagan Revolution (1980 to 2008), conservatives loosened regulations and failed to enforce anti-trust legislation. Merger mania was tolerated and corporate consolidation led to the current hourglass society (one of haves and have-nots).

Alan Greenspan was one of those reponsible for today's economic crisis and today's economic turbulence. The Federal Reserve ought to be audited.

John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil was a monopoly, but don't take my word for it. The Supreme Court said so many years ago.

If a company is "too big to fail," it's too big too exist. Anti-trust legislation ought to be strenghened and enforced. "

Mr4 wrote on Nov 19, 2009 11:26 PM:

" Maddy:

You still haven't produced one iota of evidence showing that your hated "monopolies" have produced anything other than growth and prosperity for millions. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: