Through this whole Larry Summers exchange I hear a lot of people treating regulation the way those researchers at the Mercatus Center tend to treat it - as if it is some amorphous blob that you have more of or less of (they will literally count pages of regulatory code and use that as a measure of "regulation"). Liberals think more "regulation" is good and conservatives/libertarians think more "regulation" is bad.
I don't know the regulatory world nor do I know finance and banking well enough to have a strong opinion, and as a result I don't think I ever put out a particularly strong opinion on it. But when people say things like "most of the left blames Summers for his role in weakening regulation and protecting our inefficient and wasteful financial system from proper reform" I honestly wonder if you know any better than I do, because when I read things like this I have no clue what the hell you have in mind.
Why don't people ever speak in specifics when they talk about regulation? I can believe there are people out there who genuinely think all kinds of regulation are bad, but is there really anyone out there who thinks all kinds of regulation are good? What are some specifics here?
The marginal efficiency of Russell Westbrook
44 minutes ago