Calling such regulation "depression-era" and a "regime" sounds like calculated corporate FUD.
One could argue that depression era policies were enacted because capital markets proved they could not regulate themselves. I have similar doubts about regulation and internet service providers.
The internet was born into this era of regulation, and has become one of the most important achievements of human civilization. It's hard to argue that things would've been better if AT&T would've been able to use the lion's share of internet bandwidth for a select few... private video conferencing streams, etc.
I don't trust the government, but you cannot trust corporations to police themselves. I just realized as I type this that I trust the U.S. government more than I trust corporations.
Which is sort of like saying I'd rather be eaten by wolf than a tiger, because a wolf is smaller.
In my opinion, the only reason to not trust the government in these matters is that the government itself is bought by corporations. If they had no such interest then the only remaining factor is incompetence.
Exactly. The blatant cozy relationship between government and corporations, using lobbyists (aka, former civil servants) as a broker makes the regulators so ineffective as to be worthless.
Hell, the government can't even effectively regulate itself. Look at the NSA "oversight" for example. Ostensibly it is there to regulate the NSA. In fact the NSA simply refuses requests by the oversight committee and nothing happens.
At what point with the AT&T's just start saying no to regulator demands and get away with it? I suspect its already happening.
That's like saying you shouldn't trust the police because a lot of police officers accept bribes. Even if it's true, the conclusion can hardly be that we should stop having the police.
If the majority of police accept bribes then obviously you shouldn't trust the police. I did not advocate any particular solution (such as stop having police or government). But untrustworthy police should not be policing and untrustworthy government should not be governing.
You need balance. If corporations and government and people were all about equally powerful things would probably be pretty good. As it is now, people have little to no power, and the government is basically corporate controlled through K-street.
The revolving door between Wall street and government, the dark money in super pacs, the "massive" fines for actions which resulted in much larger profits for banks and corporations, the extremely restrictive costs of running a campaign, all of these things point to the United States being what is essentially a kleptocracy.
Of course you don't trust the government. You have little to no representation. When was the last time congressional approval was above 30%? And does anything ever change?
And until these things change, until people have actual representation by their representatives, there will be no check on either the encroaching police state exemplified by collusion between agencies (DEA and NSA), the Obama administrations attempts to hide police force cellphone interception, and the rapid militarization of police forces around the country or on corporate wrong doings.
Admittedly, the situation is rosy in some respects. The drug war seems to be winding down, albeit slowly. The war on terror might even be abating a bit, although this new situation with ISIS and Ukraine may yet prove fruitful for those who are entertained by the idea of war. The LGBT community is recognizing the rights they deserve. There have been "some" checks on the banks.
But is it enough?
Just a footnote, some of this is a relatively simplistic view of incredibly complex organizations and power structures.
One could argue that depression era policies were enacted because capital markets proved they could not regulate themselves. I have similar doubts about regulation and internet service providers.
The internet was born into this era of regulation, and has become one of the most important achievements of human civilization. It's hard to argue that things would've been better if AT&T would've been able to use the lion's share of internet bandwidth for a select few... private video conferencing streams, etc.