"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...

snip


What is not at all clear to me is why the belief persists that it
is somehow a "sin" against the "gods of the market," (and likely
to bring down their wrath) to introduce and enforce prophylactic
economic/financial measures such as "loan reserve requirements,"
FASB accounting standards, and the provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley,
but it is now generally religiously acceptable to introduce and
enforce public health measures such as the pure food and drug
laws, and compulsory immunizations. Indeed, anesthesia during
childbirth is now acceptable to most people.

Oh, it shouldn't be a surprise. As you say, economics and politics make a
sort of religious mix. Healthcare, on the other hand, is one of the very few
fields in which people have a gut recognition that markets don't always
work:

Doctor: "We have a good chance to save your life if we act quickly. The
operation will cost $20,000."

Patient: "Whoa, doc! That's 'way too pricey. I think I'll wait until prices
come down."

This is the little voice that tells us market forces aren't always the
answer.

What is urgently required (but will never happen) in the current
economic crunch is that a board of enquiry or inquest, with the
power to compel document production and testimony under oath, be
convened, and then the evidence to be sifted and evaluated on a
"zero based" no-prior-assumptions basis. Too many people already
"know" the answers, and even more are making money from the
situation for this to occur.

I think you're putting a lot of faith in the "board's" ability to make an
objective analysis. I have no such faith.

My son is in his sophomore year of acquiring a degree in economics. He's
already knocking me off some of my perches with what he's learning. I'm just
going to wait two more years and have him explain it all to me.

--
Ed Huntress