Altes Elliott-Wellen-Forum - Failure, Money, and Power / Artikel, engl.

Failure, Money, and Power / Artikel, engl.

verfasst von JüKü, 30.05.2002, 18:16

<div>
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=963
</div>
<div>
 
</div>
<div>
Failure, Money, and Power
</div>

 

by Gregory Bresiger

[Posted May 30, 2002]

[img][/img] The
official credo of government regulators ought to be:"The more we screw
up, the more of us you’re going to pay for." Who taught me this lesson
in civics?

Recently, I attended the Security Traders Association (STA)
congressional conference in Washington. The buzz at the conference was about
Enron and the failures of the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission, despite every manner of mandatory audit, to foresee Enron's
problems, as well as those of Global Crossing.

What lesson did our masters draw from this huge failure? We
need more regulators with much bigger budgets. Indeed, it was all explained at
the outset of the conference by a securities industry official familiar with
life on the Potomac.

The SEC"screwed up big-time in Enron. So Congress says
give them more money," said Stephen Blumenthal, a vice president with
Schwab Capital Markets Trading.

Blumenthal, whose analysis would be verified by the parade
of congressional members who followed, said that"there is bi-partisan
support for dramatically increasing the SEC budget." And in case anyone
doubted that sharp analysis, our first speaker at the conference was more than
happy to support the Blumenthal take on the world.

"I was calling for a 200 percent or 300 percent
increase in the SEC a while ago, but nobody listened," bragged John
LaFalce (D-N.Y.), the ranking minority member of the House of Representatives
Financial Services Committee.

LaFalce, by the way, was almost salivating at the thought
that the Democrats might recapture control of the House in the next election.
He was practically laying out an agenda for what he will do when he becomes
the next chairman of House Financial Services Committee, as one set of pirates
would replace the other.

Talking about market structure, LaFalce said Congress had
not provided effective oversight."This neglect can no longer be
neglected," LaFalce said in a comment that didn’t remind one of
Cicero’s best days in the Roman Senate.

The"neglect," he said,"will be a priority
concern if I am the chairman." I don’t think he was dribbling as
he uttered that sentence. Still, he did appear to be very excited, even though
he seemed to say the word"if" very softly. Nevertheless, our great
tribune did stay with the party line.

"There is a vital need for more funding for the
SEC," LaFalce announced."The SEC can’t be a tough regulator
without adequate funding."

Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) repeatedly said she was happy to be
at the conference. She also stayed on the message and pointed out what a shame
it was that there was so much turnover at the SEC staff. Her solution? SEC pay
should be increased.

Richard Baker (R-La.), a key House Republican chairing a
financial industry subcommittee, also joined the act. He had an even better
take than LaFalce on the SEC:"Whatever they tell me they need, I am for."

This is how government works: If you can be really egregious
at what you do--say, you run Amtrak, the Defense or Education departments or,
better yet, the SEC--you scream out that there is a dire national need. Then
it will be easy to find legislators to turn on the money spigot for you, and
they give you"whatever" you need.

Now I may be just nitpicking here, but isn’t it the duty
of Congress to oversee commissions like the SEC? And as they have funded the
SEC over the past few years, haven't members of Congress ever had any
criticism of the same people they now want to shower with more dinero?

Where was Congress’s famous oversight to ensure that the
taxpayers received fair value? Was it in the same place as it was when
Congress decided to give hundreds of billions of dollars to various national
security and defense agencies that couldn’t even defend the airspace over
the White House and the Pentagon?

The solution to these problems of government disasters? More
government. It is the one that will be joyfully supplied by our congressional
Falstaffs. Create another cabinet level department, and, by all means, spend
tens of billions of dollars more on national defense in the mistaken belief
that more government means more good times. (By the way, I took the
high-priced government train, Acela, down to D.C. The train was an hour and
half late. Guess that means Amtrak will be getting a lot of your money.)

I’m being too hard on Falstaff, who was, after all, a
humorous fellow and much more of a truth teller that the average pol who is
elected to Congress to spend and never ever question if the taxpayers’
precious dollars are squandered. It is Falstaff who is credited with saying:
"Lord, Lord how this world is given to lying."

<div>
<hr align="left" width="33%" SIZE="1">
</div>

Gregory Bresiger, a business journalist, is assistant
managing editor of Traders Magazine. He has also written for the Free
Market and the New York Post. He lives in Kew Gardens, New York.
See his Mises.org Articles
Archive, and send him MAIL.



<center>

<HR>

</center>

Thread gesperrt

gesamter Thread:

Failure, Money, and Power / Artikel, engl. - JüKü, 30.05.2002, 18:16