What is behind the claim that there was deregulation under the administration of George W. Bush? Is there anything?
you should be asking people that say it........
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I haven't seen any documentation to this claim, besides a post on the LRC blog that I couldn't dig up. I was wondering if you guys know what's behind this claim.
Does anyone even make this claim anymore?
what does google give you on 'bush deregulation'
Is this what you were looking for?
I'd say that alot of people in here in Sweden blaims the crisis on the general notion of America being like the wild west with rampant uncrontrolled capitalism with its Wallstreet and huge corporations. This view of the states has always lingered here in europe to some degree and when the boom finally bust this was the easiest cause of which to blame it on.
Alot of people look at Bush's taxcuts which further fuels their belief that he was this laissez faire guy. Then they discovered that at some point in time there was this massive deregulation of the banking system and for those that are generally hostile towards free markets and american politics (and there's alot of them in Sweden) tend to mix that in with the critique against bush even though Bush, as far as I know, never touched the glass seagal act.
Put some american warmongering and torture-arguments into the pot and they got the perfect case of how everything will go wrong when you adopt a capitalistic society. The perfect caricature of a heartless capitalistic imperialistic leader is complete.The left was very quick to adopt this explanation of past events and it seems to gain ground fast and without much resistance, heck the official explanation of the crisis is "greedy bankmanagers" if you listen to the media here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3xMypfblOI ("Um, no. Re: How to lose a TRILLION Dollars" by Shanedk)
As he explains; there was no "deregulation" only new regulation. Basically, they take away a regulation, and replace it with two more.
Kinda like how in California they would say they're going to increase state spending by 10% and instead increase it by only 9% and say, "Look, we cut spending by 1% :D".
I got this in a web search. (Why does the article quote Peter Schiff favorably?)
EDIT: Sorry. The link stopped taking me to the article. It tells me to "sign up."