[AlabamaBoyz]

I didn't read the article.. But it does need some regulation..

I'm as Conservative as people get, but I don't want to rely upon market forces to keep companies from dumping Mercury into the water. Which happens. I was reading an article about 6 mos ago about a company (And I wish I could remember the specifics) which was permitted to do just that. I don't' believe market forces are sufficient as a safeguard. OTOH, I'm the biggest hater of the EPA we have.. So, I'm certainly not defending the status quo.. Regulations of this type always have costs attached, therefore you want what is absolutely necessary in terms of regulation and no more.

Collusion bothers me also.. Several heavily capitalized members of a sector could collude to drive competition out, gain market share and then repeat the process when new entrants arise. I find that troublesome.. and ultimately bad for markets, investment and consumers.

Some businesses have the potential to do such wide ranging and long term damage to the people who live around them.. Indeed, even continents away, via the Jet Stream that a degree of regulation seems prudent.. Nuclear Power producers would fall into this category.. When something works great for 40 years, but has one bad day and renders the surrounding area uninhabitable for generations, what can you say? That's a threat and it should be mitigated by sensible regulation.

Financial markets need regulating, but in my view, primarily because we've created a monopoly system for the large banks.. I understand their purpose in borrowing from the fed, leveraging and creating more money as they go along, but if we are to keep this system, and their monopoly I see a need for regulation there..

Not all of this is Constitutional, however.. I see nothing which would permit the Federal government to undertake a watchdog role here. Perhaps that's a mistake, and perhaps it's not? But I see a few areas of the private economy where regulation could become necessary or would be prudent.