In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote:

| There needs to be certain regulations on this. Where bad decisions can only
| affect ones own profits, the government really has no need to be involved.
| But where bad decisions can affect the whole economy, the government has a
| genuine interest to be involved.
|
| Where do you draw that line? ...other than the obvious fraud
| involved.

I draw the line where the decisions affect the public in general, the nation,
and the economy. For it to be a violation, there has to be regulations or
laws in place. There are lots of little lines to draw, and I don't have
all the answers. I just know that where thet are drawn now isn't good
enough.


| Generally, bankruptcy proceedings can separate a loser from his losses.
| Those who own a losing business get to lose their business that way.
| That may well be an adequate remedy for situations like this. But if
| more is needed, maybe jail time for the bad actors?
|
| You can jail them for fraud. How do you jail them for bad financial
| decisions? Your answer is too simple to be of use.

See above. If the decision involves something that will have an impact
beyond just the deciders finances, or the finances of his company, then
it needs to be regulated/legislated. The specifics would depend on what
is involved. There are lots (thousands) of little areas that might be
subject to this.

What I'm proposing is the general idea. Specifics still need to be worked
out.


| I did suspect this housing mess needs to have some people put in jail. But
| the laws may not have made it sufficiently clear to do it this time around.
| To the extent that is so, the laws need to change.
|
| What do you propose to make illegal that isn't already?

I don't know, yet. If everything done by that executives that caused this
mess really is already illegal, then lets put the *******s in jail. If we
can't (now) then we need to explore why not and fix things so we can in
the future (and make sure they understand these changes).


| | | | As for taxing imports, this silliness was settled in the 18th Century in
| | | | Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Smith proved that everybody benefits
| | | | when nations do what they do best and freely trade with other nations who
| | | | also do what they do best.
| | |
| | | As long as all nations are on a level playing field, this would be so. But
| | | it is a fact that most nations outside the USA have governments playing a
| | | hand in the economies.
| | |
| | | It's impossible for a government to *not* have a hand in economics
| | | and silly to think they should (not).
| |
| | How the governments in places like China are managing their economy compared
| | to the USA is a big contrast. It puts the USA in a weak position.
| |
| | Also true, but irrelevant.
|
| You sure to consider a lot of things to be irrelevant.
|
| They may have merit but are irrelevant to the point being raised in
| this thread. IOW, a strawman (or red herring - take your pick).

Well, for the original thread topic, yeah, China is irrelevant.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |