hi jt,
the bankers being an example.
yep. deregulation makes sense for them because they don't bear their own downside risk. tax payers are on the hook for that.
the fact that businesses don't like regulation does not mean it ain't worthwhile.
remembering recent history, there are one or two oil platform workers who might also be content to see government intrusion in profit-driven corporations; and folks who live downwind and downstream of chemical plants.
some folks seem to imagine the profit motive will always generate benefits and nothing else. there are these things called negative externalities.
libertarians like to imagine they don't exist. let the market decide. which is fine if you think you are not vulnerable to the problem.
and it isn't that profits are intrinsically wicked. they also generate wealth. the question is, at what cost to the folks that don't show up in the income statement.
how do you protect those people from harm?
well, you need the polluter to pay the pollution cost, of course. or to be prevented from polluting.
at root, this is also the romney question. here's a guy who made some of his money at the expense of others' misery. due amongst other things to liquidity preference, others were left holding the bag. romney took the swag.
is that kind of person really presidential material? seems to me he may be rich but at best he's amoral at his core.
| 