sure but you can't attach moral obligation or duty to a corporate entity, all you can do is regulate (and we are trying...)

to tie the two together, i don't believe regulators are paying nearly enough attention to how incentives have changed over the past 15 years and why board of directors have become powerless to common sense in this arena

> sure but you can't attach moral obligation or duty to a corporate entity, all you can do is regulate (and we are trying...)

Actually, that's not "all you can do".

Note that regulators "don't have any skin in the game" and that regulation is systemic risk (by definition).

Also, regulation is always behind.

And that's without even addressing the elephant in the room, regulatory capture.

although i appreciate your attempt at libertarianism, your logic is non-nonsensical: you attack regulation without offering an alternative or re-defining the problem

> your logic is non-nonsensical: you attack regulation without offering an alternative or re-defining the problem

Non-sensical?

Do you really believe that the properties of regulation are affected by alternatives? (Hint: the relative merit is, but not the absolute properties.)

It's perfectly appropriate to interrupt a regulation love-fest by pointing out that it does not have the properties that its fans claim.

Do you really want to argue "we must do something, regulation is something, therefore we must regulate"?

And, there's the small matter that regulation can take many forms. For example, torts are a form of regulation.

Yet, question bureaucrats, and folks rise up.

You remember bureaucrats. They're folks with no skin in the game....

in politics relative merit is what gets things done (Hint: you can get around this by starting your own libertarian paradise on some uninhabited island, may I submit the name "jackassland" for your consideration)