Linked by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff on Fri 31st Aug 2007 08:54 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 268037
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-05
"More recent examples are WorldCom and Enron. Both companies where working in recently deregulated industries and anybody can tell you what happened there in more detail than this post allows for."
Interesting that you would choose to cite Enron as an example. One only needs to study a little of Enron's history to see how they completely gamed California's system of regulation. While remaining completely legal I might add.
The dark history of Enron is an argument *for* allowing the straight-forward approach of the market forces to decide who to punish and who to reward. In the case of California, it was the state's attempts to regulate energy prices that were an early enabler of Enron's behavior. Now, I'm not arguing against government regulation, but I am suggesting that there's a balance to strike between regulation and the market forces. Leaning toward the latter. I'm not an expert on the subject by any means. I'm simply pointing out that there's arguments for and against both.