PROCESS AND 'OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY': Crovitz: Financial Regulation—Worse Than a Crime - WSJ.com

Crovitz: Financial Regulation—Worse Than a Crime - WSJ.com

It's also part of the problem when, to capture a phrase - regulators don't have "any skin in the game". In other words, they are dealing with other people's money, not their own.

In addition, regulators, as the article points out, are dealing with motherhood-type causes. What do I mean by this? Mothers generally are the member of the family that looks out for the welfare of the children. They expect and anticipate that the resources for this care will be there.

Mothers are not like the fathers in this simplistic (and admittedly sexist example) the 'breadwinners'. Someone else is responsible for providing the income.

This is clearly the liberal and Democratic (and union belief) - i.e. there are demands to be met (think of them as you will) and someone else is to provide the funding.

As a result, it is current consumption that trumps everything the mother-instinct of these liberals might consider. In the old farmer analysis of saving the seed-corn for the next season's planting, the mother instinct says, "I need food now", let's worry about the next season or the economy another day.

This has been the exact situation where liberals and unions make policy. They see needs and they abdure looking at the cost and what the consequences will be.

The next big issue is that since liberals don't have any skin-in-the-game, they think 'process' can trump product. As such, regulations and process are supposed to produce the halcyon results liberals (mothers) envisage.

The fact that evidence negates this view is again dismissed. Why? Because someone has been given consumption they haven't earned. The benefit has been delivered; and, the cost is borne by someone else.

Today, politicians like Obama keep saying it's the rich that are keeping the benefits to the middle class down. As long as the middle class believes they can get something for nothing, it's like a religious belief - i.e. eventually the benefice will come, just keep believing.

Until there's a return to getting what you deserve and can pay for back to society (i.e. not an entitlement) is reduced and balanced out, then the prognosis has to be one of anticipating more economically bad news (be it depression, recession, inflation or rampant inflation)!