Skip to comments.Polls Shows American Believe There is Too Much Government Regulation
Posted on 09/26/2012 7:47:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
Gallup Polls show Little Appetite in U.S. for More Gov't Regulation of Business
Americans say there is too much (47%) rather than too little (26%) government regulation of business and industry, with 24% saying the amount of regulation is about right. Americans have been most likely to say there is too much regulation of business over the last several years, but prior to 2006, Americans' views on the issue of government regulation of business were more mixed.
Question: In general, do you think there is too much, too little, or about the right amount of government regulation of business and industry?
The collapse of Lehman Bros., the failure of the secondary mortgage market, and other business problems in 2008 and 2009 might have been expected to increase Americans' desire for more government control of business and industry. But that was not the case. Americans' views that there is too much government regulation in fact began to rise in 2009, perhaps in response to the new Obama administration and new business regulation policies such as Dodd-Frank, reaching an all-time high of 50% in 2011 before settling down slightly this year to 47%.
There has been little change since 2003 in the percentage of Americans saying there is too little regulation of business. The changes that have occurred in recent years have involved shifts between the percentages choosing the "too much" and "about right" alternatives.
The rating agencies were originally research firms. They were paid by those looking to buy bonds or make loans to a company. If a rating company did poorly it lost business. If it did poorly too often it went out of business.
Low and behold the SEC came along in 1975 and ruined a perfectly viable business construct by mandating that debt be rated by a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO). It originally named seven such rating companies but the number fluctuated between 5 and 7 over the years.
Establishment of the NRSRO did three things (all bad):
1) It made it extremely difficult to become "nationally recognized" as a rating agency when all debt had to be rated by someone who was already nationally recognized.
2) In effect it created a nice monopoly for those in the designated group.
3) It turned upside down the model of who had to pay. Previously debt buyers would go to the ratings companies to know what they were buying. The new model was issuers of debt had to pay to get it rated or they couldn't sell it. Of course this led to shopping around to see who would give the debt the highest rating.
With that I have to sit back and laugh at one of the original opening statements in this article: "I do not think that the market can discipline ratings agencies sufficiently," said Mr Mindich, chief executive of Eton Park Capital and a former colleague of Hank Paulson, the Treasury secretary, at Goldman Sachs, the investment bank.
Clearly Mr. Mindich does not understand the free market. The problems arose because the free market was disrupted by a misguided mandate by the SEC.
The Solution is Amazingly Easy
Government sponsorship of organizations and intervention into free markets always creates these kinds of problems. The cure is not an executive shuffle, third party verification or half-measures and more regulation that mask over the issues by splitting functions within an organization. The SEC created this problem by creating the NRSRO. The problem is easily fixable. It's time to break up the cartel by eliminating the rules that created it. Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P should have to sink or swim by the accuracy of their ratings just like everyone else. Ratings would be a lot better if corporations had to live or die by them. Free market competition, not additional regulation is the cure.Government Regulation a Leading Cause of the Housing Bubble
Many point to elimination of Glass-Stagall as the cause of the crisis. They are wrong. Glass-Steagall would not have stopped the securitizion process or passing the trash to Fannie Mae or investors. It would not have stopped the AAA rating scam of Moody's, Fitch, and the S&P.
A case can be made for Glass-Steagall on the grounds that separation of duties wouls prevent fraud, and regulations designed to preserve property rights and prevent fraud are reasonable. However, Glass-Steagall would have done nothing to stop the housing bubble or subsequent crash.
The key point is government regulation, the Fed, and fractional reserve lending are the primary causes of numerous boom-bust cycles.
Regulation should focus on fraud prevention and preservation of property rights, not misguided social agenda like "affordable housing". Government never makes anything affordable.
Well... gawrsh... are they somehow thinking the regulatory boot will be lifted if they vote to reelect Obama???
“... and they will continue to vote for more and more and more and more every chance they get for the rest of their miserable, stinking lives.”
There is not enough regulation on everybody else.
This is exactly why I think we aren’t getting the truth from the polls. Anyone who would vote for Obama would automatically believe government is there to serve and feed them and anything they do to regulate those damned corporations and take their money and drive them out of business is good.
None of the polls about who they’ll vote for or stories about “is Mitt gonna lose because - just pick one of the hundreds....” make any sense.
So far this week we see...Ohio is up 10% over Mitt for Obama, Catholics are 65% for Obama, Jews are for Obama, and on and on and on. Hell, even NASCAR is for Obama -——I rest my case. I just don’t believe it. I can see 47% for him, but 55% or 60%? After what he hasn’t done vs his wild ass promises?
Something ain’t right here.
but but but polls show Romney wins the middle class, married white women, white men, the elderly, etc.
Polls show most think we are going in the wrong direction.
too much Govt,
illegals shoild not get welfare or vote,
most refuse to accept the homosexual agenda,
most do not want obamacare.
but we’re supposed to beleive the media that obama is easily winning my state and other swing states!!!
NOT A FRIGGING CHANCE
>>Polls Shows American Believe There is Too Much Government Regulation<<
This gets the big damn understatement of the year award!
I really don't believe Romney will do anything to relieve the regulatory burden either.
He and Obama both strike me as Socialists, and Statists. (I don't think I've heard Romney say "that's not government's job" about *anything*.)
But these same people are going to mark their ballots for more regulation imposed by another four years of Obama?
Most think the country is going in the wrong direction.
Most want Obamacare repealed.
Most stand for traditional marriage.
Most think there is too much regulation.
Most want illegal immigration stopped and borders secured.
Most want voters to have proper identification.
Most think Obama has failed in the handling of the economy.
But the polls show he is ahead?! Something not right.
Didn’t I heard that there are 11,000 new pages of federal regulations since Obama has been president?
Yes, and they think the regulations affecting the people they do business with are just peachy. Can’t let those guys get away with anything!
And most Americans don’t even know the half of what all of this redundant and sometimes conflicting regulation is costing them.
People really do react to data, if it’s presented properly.
If Romney, during a debate, would cite the poll numbers here, i.e., that Democrats, when polled, favor MORE regulation, not less, that data would be difficult to refute.
And since, according to the polls, most people favor less regulation, he wouldn’t even have to refer to that one. Just point out where the Democrats, on the whole, stand.
Then he could elaborate on the massive increase in regulation, in detail, under the first four years of Obama. (There’s certainly no lack of supporting data.) Finally, he could finish it with the statement that Obama and the Democrats put 1/6 of the economy under control of the government, and 100% of our personal healthcare, yet most of us favor less regulation, not more.
Then give some examples of how he’s going to cut regulation of our lives, starting with repealing Obamacare if he’s elected and if the Senate GOP candidates are elected with him.
But... but... a bunch of freepers have lionized President Kennedy and "informed" me that JFK was a heroic free market, anti-communist icon and "more conservative than today's Republicans"
Obviously, forcing collective bargaining must be really "conservative", since none of today's Republicans would be caught dead doing it.
< /sarcasm >
This story should add at least three points to the overall Obama popularity by Thursday.