Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Utah's Third Attempt To Regulate Keywords Fails

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the third-time-apparently-not-the-charm dept.

The Courts 68

Eric Goldman writes "Earlier this month, we discussed HB 450, the Utah Legislature's third attempt to regulate keyword advertising after the past two efforts failed miserably. The latest attempt barely passed the Utah House, aided in part by a 'yes' vote from Representative Jennifer Seelig, who also happens to be a lobbyist-employee of 1-800 Contacts, the principal advocate of HB 450. Nevertheless, HB 450 died in the Utah Senate without a vote when the Utah Legislature adjourned last night. Despite the seeming good news, it would be surprising if the Utah Legislature didn't try a fourth time to regulate keyword advertising in a future session."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow... (1, Insightful)

H0bbes1321 (1500483) | more than 5 years ago | (#27191673)

Let it go huh? Geez...

Re:Wow... (2, Interesting)

conureman (748753) | more than 5 years ago | (#27191685)

They get those cush jobs with all the benefits, then feel compelled to DO something, anything...

It sounds like (3, Informative)

Steve Franklin (142698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27191819)

From what I can extract from the less than informative articles referenced, these bills attempt to protect Utah (read Mormon) companies from having to compete with out-of-state companies that provide the same goods and services. Something tells me this would eventually be shot down on constitutional grounds. I mean, imagine the state legislature of Maine trying to ban advertising for Coke because there's a Maine registered brand called Maine's Best Maple Cola (I'm just making this up).

But yes, they get elected and they think they have to DO SOMETHING. Lulz.

Re:It sounds like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27192131)

Maine's Best Maple Cola (I'm just making this up).

Of course you are. Maine's best Maple Cola comes from Canada

Re:It sounds like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27192451)

Maine's Best Maple Cola

Your schitting on a gold mine, Trebek!

Re:It sounds like (0, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193557)

But that's what government is for - to regulate. Right? At least that's what (almost) everybody keeps telling me. "We need government to regulate business because a free market doesn't work, as we discovered with the current recession." Utah's Legislature is just regulating the advertising market as it's "supposed" to do. They are doing their job, so where's the problem?

Of course I have to wonder -

- if Bush-era deregulation is the cause of the U.S. market woes, then why is the European Union, the world's most stringently-regulated capitalist "country", in recession too? Apparently their regulated markets didn't help them. (shrug). Well whatever. I don't live in Utah. They can do whatever they want - none of my business.

Re:It sounds like (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#27195625)

Hm.. I suppose Google, Yahoo, etc, could decide to ignore their keyword regulations and refrain from doing business in the state of Utah.

This would mean they endeavor to remove sites based in Utah from their index.

And they endeavor to block PCs whose geographic location is the state of Utah from buying/selling AdSense ads, and accessing their search, and other advertising-funded services.

Re:Wow... (3, Insightful)

Kabuthunk (972557) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192983)

It's like Quebec and the referendum they try to push through every so often. Basically, it sucks for everyone except the person trying to push their agenda through.

They can try to push through their agenda a hundred times. All it takes is a single ONE of those to go through, and everything is fucked forever. Because once it goes through, there's no way it will ever go back again.

I see it as akin to brute-forcing a password or something. Keep trying over and over again, and eventually you'll get through. And once you do, it can't be undone.

Re:Wow... (1)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 5 years ago | (#27196781)

Why can't it be undone? Don't new laws get written all the time that undo or modify old laws?

tp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27191709)

third post1111

Re:tp (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27191949)

fail

LOLUTAH! (4, Funny)

Chas (5144) | more than 5 years ago | (#27191789)

I'm sure they'll eventually try something even dumber...like legislating that Pluto is a planet...

Like...here...in Illinois...

DOH!

Re:LOLUTAH! (0, Offtopic)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193929)

The thing I don't get is, if "clearing" the orbit is what's needed for a dwarf planet to become a planet, why is Neptune a planet? It hasn't cleared its orbit of Pluto. It's a silly definition. Just make Pluto, Ceres, Neptune and Eris planets.

How would they enforce this? (5, Interesting)

UconnGuy (562899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27191793)

I can't imagine any legislature would even consider this seriously since there is no way for them to enforce this except for those businesses that deal in keywords and have servers in Utah and the company only deals in Utah (i.e. not on the internet). I would think that other than that, the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution applies and they would not be able to regulate it at the state level. Is this the case? I am usually wrong so I would like someone with a better sense of the law to comment on this.

Re:How would they enforce this? (1)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 5 years ago | (#27191873)

You'd think that's how it works, that they can't nab people for stuff on the internet... Talk to Mr. Max Hardcore about that.

Nothing to do with Law (4, Insightful)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27191895)

I can't imagine any legislature would even consider this seriously since there is no way for them to enforce this except for those businesses that deal in keywords and have servers in Utah and the company only deals in Utah (i.e. not on the internet). I would think that other than that, the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution applies and they would not be able to regulate it at the state level. Is this the case? I am usually wrong so I would like someone with a better sense of the law to comment on this.

This has nothing to do with the law; it has to do with politics.

You grossly over estimate the altruism, intelligence, and motives of politicians. This legislation is designed to get votes. Period. Some cry baby vocal minority out there wants this and the rest of the population, more than likely, doesn't give a shit.

In the meantime, the politicians get the support of the vocal obnoxious cry baby group (volunteer labor and money), which then enables said politicians get to keep their over paid cushy jobs.

Simple.

But that's what government is for - to regulate (-1, Flamebait)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27191809)

Right? At least that's what (almost) everybody keeps telling me. "We need government to regulate business because a free market doesn't work, as we discovered with the current recession." Utah's Legislature is just regulating the advertising market as it's "supposed" to do. They are doing their job, so where's the problem?

Of course I have to wonder -

- if Bush-era deregulation is the cause of the U.S. market woes, then why is the European Union, the world's most stringently-regulated capitalist "country", in recession too? Apparently their regulated markets didn't help them. (shrug). Well whatever. I don't live in Utah. They can do whatever they want - none of my business.

Government prevents the few from harming the many (2, Insightful)

Steve Franklin (142698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27191855)

"if Bush-era deregulation is the cause of the U.S. market woes, then why is the European Union, the world's most stringently-regulated capitalist "country", in recession too?"

What you are missing through your fog of suspect thought patterns is that European financial problems, as well as those of Asia and most of the rest of the world, were the direct result of American (US) lack of regulation and the interconnected nature of the current global economic system. To put it country simple, it only takes ONE APPLE to spoil the barrel, and that rotten apple was destined for an American apple pie.

Re:Government prevents the few from harming the ma (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27192011)

hogwash... just because you want america's markets to be fair with the rest of the world... guess what LIFE ISN'T FAIR, imo we needed a recession to knock idiots like you around. why the hell are you putting your trust in a human economy? go ahead and invest just keep enough money on the side in savings, its called planning ahead. have you noticed the widening gap between middle class and rich people? clinton deregulated more stuff then bush did.

Government prevents the few from harming the ma (2, Interesting)

Steve Franklin (142698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192093)

Actually, I'm 98% in cash (including gold) and have been since your hero Idiot II lowered the tax rate on capital gains. No, I am not an idiot (except for the time I bet on the Bank of England against George Soros).

No, I don't want the "markets to be fair with the rest of the world." I want the criminal types who cost the American people billions of dollars to be locked up in prison along with the guys who stole $200 from a bleeping liquor store. Life may not be fair, but the G-D D-NED legal system that regulates wall street needs to be, or you will be spouting your tripe from the side of the barrel you are selling apples from on the street corner. Why do you not get this? Did someone drop you on your head when you were a little kid?

And really, like Mike Malloy says, after you syntax-challenged characters have managed to destroy the financial system of the world, you might just want to sit in the corner and BE QUIET.

Re:Government prevents the few from harming the ma (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27192325)

Mr Franklin? Sir? Can we play on your lawn?

--the kidz

Re:Government prevents the few from harming the ma (1)

Steve Franklin (142698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27200833)

As long as you don't tromp on my strawberries.

Re:Government prevents the few from harming the ma (2, Insightful)

El Torico (732160) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192063)

What you are missing through your fog of suspect thought patterns is that European financial problems, as well as those of Asia and most of the rest of the world, were the direct result of American (US) lack of regulation and the interconnected nature of the current global economic system. To put it country simple, it only takes ONE APPLE to spoil the barrel, and that rotten apple was destined for an American apple pie.

Although that is the accepted explanation, by no means is it complete. There was an enormous real estate asset bubble in Europe (most notably in Spain) and one in the Middle East (the UAE and Qatar). It was inevitable that these bubbles would burst, but the one in the USA burst first.
One major cause of the current fiasco is that the Regulatory Agencies were simply not doing their jobs. The incompetence and sloth of the "civil servants" is what is meant by the term of "failure of oversight". What good are more regulations if regulators fail to enforce the existing ones?

Re:Government prevents the few from harming the ma (2, Informative)

Steve Franklin (142698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192163)

[Nice mod of Marvin Kitman's old motto]

There have always been bubbles. Check out "tulipomania" on the web if you doubt this. The difference here is that the extent of the damage is much wider and that wider extent is a direct result of who knows how many hundreds of trillions of dollars of financial derivatives being traded off of any regulated exchange. Though you may be right in general about more unenforced regulations, in this particular case this global financial meltdown is a direct result of lack of regulation. Whether those regulations would have been properly enforced is anyone's guess. Looking at the Madoff case, I have to suspect they wouldn't have. Unfortunately, we will never know, because no one even tried, except for a few voices in the wilderness.

Re:Government prevents the few from harming the ma (2, Insightful)

Evil Shabazz (937088) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192855)

De-regulation, by itself, is not necessarily a long term problem. In fact, the free-market theory works very, very, very well over a sufficiently long timeline. Criminal behavior is weeded out, and value will eventually normalize to the correct nominal level.

However, what de-regulation and free-market theory fails to address is human nature, and corruption in the short term. Free market normalization is not a fast process. It is very easy for the selfishness of a few, the willingness of a few to game the system to their own short-term profit, to ruin everything for a large number of honest people.

Cases in point. Major de-regulation and the fascination with Wall St. basically started with Reaganomics. Since then, every major economic calamity in the US has been a result of the short term greed and borderline criminality I described in the above paragraph. And in each of those calamities, free market theory did not have an answer.

- Savings & Loan scandals, a la Keating 5 etc.
- 2001 Dot Com bubble
- 2007 Financial collapse
Just to name a few of the major ones. All results of a specific group of greed-crazed people who gamed the system where little or no regulation existed. If the Free Market were allowed to correct these over-zealous maneuvers, it would have had to do so at great expense to everyone else.

All that said, I am not a proponent of that much regulation. I think the responsibility also lies in the hands of all the shareholders and bondholders out there who invested their money in these questionable securities. Most people violated the very first rule of investing (at least to me): If you don't understand how you're going to get your profit, or you don't understand how the company you're investing in makes its money, don't invest.

If you get taken by a con-man, chances are you weren't paying enough attention.

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (5, Insightful)

transiit (33489) | more than 5 years ago | (#27191857)

Your signature suggests a bias. Might look into changing that.

I think what bothers a lot of people is that we were told for many years "Oh, no. We have to have free markets. We must deregulate everything!", and then many decided to take an unethical approach to how they go about their business and it turned out that they might not have been trustworthy after all. In the last days of the previous administration, they reversed course into a "worst of both worlds" scenario: Remove all limitations and then fund them to keep them afloat when their machinations didn't pan out. (I don't know where the new administration is going with this, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that a huge policy swing towards "No more federal aid" might not make as much sense as a gradual approach towards change.)

But, to answer your question, heavily-regulated markets in Europe didn't keep them from investing outside of their local market. We fucked up, and so the impact doesn't stop at our borders, every foreign investor gets to feel the pinch as well.

In short (3, Insightful)

Steve Franklin (142698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27191927)

Basically these characters want "free markets" when they are doing well and taxpayer-funded socialism when they are not. Whereas what we had in the U.S. until the '30s was the "boom and bust" cycle, fueling ever greater bubbles and collapses until it finally became apparent that the nation couldn't take much more of this nonsense. And then along came the Neonuts and it was back on the ferris wheel again.

But yes, everything you say is spot on and cogent.

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (3, Insightful)

j. andrew rogers (774820) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194353)

On what planet was the financial system deregulated? This occurred in one of the most extremely regulated and least free industries we have. It makes other "heavily regulated" industries look positively libertine.

The problem was not with "deregulation", but with pervasively *bad* regulation that was designed more for political expediency than robust markets (e.g. FASB 157). The market will always find the equilibrium tacitly created by the government, but the government never takes responsibility for the unintended consequences of its regulatory actions even when the potential consequences were well understood at the time the regulations were implemented. The problem was not deregulation, it was too much bad regulation.

Compounding this was a lack of enforcement of regulations, due in large part to regulatory capture. I would point out, for example, that Obama appointed Mary Schapiro to be the head of the SEC, the very same person responsible for ignoring or stonewalling whistleblowers in a number of high-profile fraud cases, including the Madoff case. When a person so obviously incompetent at enforcing regulations or policing fraud gets promoted to the top enforcement position, it strongly suggests that regulations are not about regulating.

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (2, Informative)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27191923)

Because we're all in a Globalized economy. No nation is an economic island anymore. The financial markets, especially, are so interlinked, I don't think it's possible to do business in only one economy.

A great book about it: The World Is Curved: Hidden Dangers to the Global Economy [amazon.com] .

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (5, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#27191939)

- if Bush-era deregulation is the cause of the U.S. market woes, then why is the European Union, the world's most stringently-regulated capitalist "country", in recession too? Apparently their regulated markets didn't help them. (shrug).

Actually, the member states of the EU are in widely varying degrees of recession. The UK is totally and utterly screwed, near bankruptcy -- mainly because it was Bush's lapdog for a decade, because its Neues Arbeit Regime looked after itself first, and because they are nothing more than the willing puppets of corporate interests.

Iceland is screwed because it depended on the UK too much. France and Germany are affected, but they do have much more banking regulation and it's nothing like as bad. The other member states are affected less still for the same reasons.

This is why there is so much disagreement at the G20 talks right now -- many EU countries are actually doing ok, despite the recession, and don't want the US and UK imposing desperate Keynsian burn and spend tactics. Since, they don't need them, and would that probably drive them further into depression and instability, just like the US and UK.

The whole of this mess though, does relate to this article. The fundamental problem in today's society is that corporate interests overrule the will of the people. Governments everywhere are bought and sold. I have no idea how we fix this -- corporations are too powerful. However, we really, really, really need to. All of us, in every country.

Maybe it starts with corporate employees from grassroots up. If you work for a corporation, why do you allow all life on Earth to be exploited for your masters bidding? You can change things, you have free will, and a duty to us all. Those of us who don't work in corporations really can't do anything it seems.

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (4, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193923)

You forgot Eastern Europe. It experienced a bubble similar to the U.S. housing market, with large investments from the west in various homes/companies that are now going bankrupt.

BTW - watch the EU government carefully. During the 30s the U.S. government made a huge power grab, taking-over tasks traditionally controlled by the state governments, so that Washington became the power. I expect the EU government to do the same thing - and you'll endup kowtowing to Brussels as your focus.

>>>Maybe it starts with corporate employees from grassroots up. If you work for a corporation, why do you allow all life on Earth to be exploited for your masters bidding? You can change things, you have free will, and a duty to us all.
>>>

That leads to getting fired. The employee-corporate relationship is a lot like serf-to-landlord. You do what you're told or you get removed, and then you have no way to feed yourself.

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (4, Insightful)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192007)

Right? At least that's what (almost) everybody keeps telling me. "We need government to regulate business because a free market doesn't work, as we discovered with the current recession." Utah's Legislature is just regulating the advertising market as it's "supposed" to do. They are doing their job, so where's the problem?

Nice attempt at a strawman using an absolute blanket statement (typical Repuglican tactic) but you're wrong. The free market usually works most of the time. Sometimes however regulation is an absolute necessity because companies only have one obligation and that is to make a profit.

Making a profit != Best interests of America

Consider the current economic mess the U.S. is in. I'll throw you this bone, it DID start under Clinton when he pressured Fannie/Freddie to loosen lending requirements to let more people borrow. Fannie and Freddie worked for so many years because they DID have such tight lending requirements.

When it became possible for everyone with a pulse to get a mortgage by not using Freddie/Fannie but with unregulated companies taking their place, you have the rise of the CDOs against mortgage backed securities and the problem with these CDOs is that they can be resold and resold countless times without regulation.

Credit Default Swaps written against these is ultimately what brought America into this. SO it's not a partisan issue although you could say with CDOs/CDS being sold for 8 years under Bush why they never looked into it.

It was pure greed. The system worked fine under Fannie/Freddie when the tight requirements (READ: REGULATION) was in place.

Here's another analogy since I can't write it in crayon for you.

Imagine that your neighbor buys his 16 year old son a $30,000 V8 Mustang to celebrate the kid's newly acquired driver's license. Say you think the kid is going to wreck the car, because you know what a reckless brat he is. So you take out an insurance policy for the value of his car. Only you don't take just one. You take 100, maybe 1000. Say everyone else in your neighborhood does the same thing, because there are no insurance regulations that prevent it. Now you have a $30,000 dollar unsecured asset insured for $300,000,000, underwritten by an entity with nowhere near the assets to cover all the bets if the kid wrecks the car. Throw short sellers into the mix, and you have some of the neighbors giving the kid a fifth of Jack Daniels before his Friday night date.

Sometimes regulation is a good thing.

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (2, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192251)

Sometimes regulation is a good thing.

And sometimes regulation causes major economic failures. Like the one we're dealing with now.

See, the risk of market regulation is that it gives people a false sense of security. And that's *exactly* what happened with the sub-prime mortgage securities. They were based on models that were so complex regulators couldn't understand them, so the regulators contracted out the analysis to basically the same bunch of investment banks that were pushing them. But hardly anybody *buying* the securities realized this. They looked at the AAA ratings, listened to the assurances from the sellers and said "These guys can't be lying because the SEC would be stomping them into the ground if they were".

The existence of regulation basically eliminated due diligence. People trusted that the regulators were doing their job, because the regulators and regulations WERE in place! But whether it's just that the business had outpaced the regulators or the regulators were asleep at the wheel, the controls that everyone believed were in place were not.

The cause of the sub-prime fiasco wasn't that there was no regulation. The problem was *ineffective* regulation, which wasn't known to be ineffective, and that is a thousand times worse than no regulation.

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (3, Insightful)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192495)

So basically you're saying that, since people lie, there's no point in making any rules.

I'm just going to go ahead and disagree with you on that one.

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (0)

swillden (191260) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192515)

So basically you're saying that, since people lie, there's no point in making any rules.

Nope, not what I said at all.

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (2, Insightful)

The Wooden Badger (540258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192647)

I think the point is regulation is only as good as the regulators. If the regulators aren't worth their salt, then regulation won't do jack. If we aren't going to regulate properly, then there isn't much point talking about how "deregulation is bad", or "we need more regulation"

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (3, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194043)

>>>since people lie, there's no point in making any rules

No. Since businessmen and politicians lie ("Yeah it's safe to buy a $400,000 home even though you only earn $20,000 a year"), you can't trust either of them. Neither corporations nor governments can be trusted, so stop looking to them for advice. Instead rely on yourself.

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (1)

mattrumpus (677024) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192917)

The wider question is why people were looking to take out mortgages and other types of household credit in the first place. A bit of spend on some reasonable social housing so those that couldn't really afford it didn't need to turn to the credit system for a decent place to live would have been much cheaper than the bailout.

There were some other structural issues. The so called "death" of monetarism people called because the money supply was rapidly growing and inflation was staying low may have been premature. The money (credit) had to go somewhere, and it went into assets. A speculative boom being the result.

Just a few thoughts...

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194103)

>>>why people were looking to take out mortgages and other types of household credit in the first place.

Because the government-owned schools taught us to buy-buy-buy even if we had to go deep into debt to get our shiny-new toys (yes that includes shiny-new houses). The solution is for schools to teach people to say no, and save money first, and then pay cash.

>>>A bit of spend on some reasonable social housing

Sorry but I'm not working my ass off to buy somebody else a house. That's a violation of my rights and theft of labor. Let those persons save their own money to buy a small $40,000 starter home. Or rent, like I did when I first started.

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (1)

mattrumpus (677024) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194413)

>>>why people were looking to take out mortgages and other types of household credit in the first place.

Because the government-owned schools taught us to buy-buy-buy even if we had to go deep into debt to get our shiny-new toys (yes that includes shiny-new houses). The solution is for schools to teach people to say no, and save money first, and then pay cash.

>>>A bit of spend on some reasonable social housing

Sorry but I'm not working my ass off to buy somebody else a house. That's a violation of my rights and theft of labor. Let those persons save their own money to buy a small $40,000 starter home. Or rent, like I did when I first started.

No, instead you're working your ass off to pay for the collapse of the financial system. Personally I'd rather chip in a bit to make sure everyone in my neighborhood has decent accomodation.

As for the theft of labour argument, hahaha, what are you? A Marxist? Cause that's exactly what Marx says your boss is doing. The big wake up call from the current crisis is that you're going to be taxed regardless. So, you can vote for your taxes to pay for bombs and bailouts, or houses and hospitals....

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27192963)

companies only have one obligation and that is to make a profit

If you look closely, you'll find that government has exactly the same goal. How else can we explain the fact that governments only expand in total revenue over time, never reduce? No government in history -- democracy or otherwise -- has ever significantly, permanently, and willingly reduced it's overall revenue. The people in the business of government consistently vote to make government bigger, never smaller. Yet somehow, we trust these people more than those who actually have something to lose by making bad investments?

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193971)

>>>companies only have one obligation and that is to make a profit.

An easy fix is to outlaw corporations, such that companies are owned by an individual (or group) and those individuals are directly responsible for all acts. Such a company would still want profit, but they'd also have other motives like following the golden rule (treat others like you want to be treated) and a desire not to be prosecuted for manslaughter if a car blows-up (desire to make safe cars), and so on.

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194007)

>>>it DID start under Clinton when he pressured Fannie/Freddie to loosen lending requirements to let more people borrow.

What good are regulations if a single man (clinton) or group (democrats in congress) can throw-out the regulations so easily? Perhaps the real flaw is we rely too much on government, especially when that government is directly responsible for the bubble.

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (1)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 5 years ago | (#27195679)

(typical Repuglican tactic)

Why undermine your point with name calling?

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (1)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193391)

The free market works just fine, you need regulation to *have* a free market though. The banks collapsed because no regulation meant no information about the assets being sold, and people who got adjustable rate mortgages weren't told that the banks would jack the interest rates up so high that the mortgage payments doubled.

Re:But that's what government is for - to regulate (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194235)

>>>you need regulation to *have* a free market though.

Nonsense. Even in the total absence of government, a market will exist as people trade goods for goods, or gold/silver for goods. In fact one of the best "booms" of recent history was in the early and late 1800s, when the U.S. government took a hands-off policy of non-interference.

Who is pushing for this? (3, Interesting)

jonwil (467024) | more than 5 years ago | (#27191899)

Any time you have a law like this being proposed (especially one being proposed again and again), there is some special interest group or big company or lobby group pushing for it. Who is doing it in this case and why pick Utah as the place to lobby for it? (a testbed to get similar laws passed in other states?)

Re:Who is pushing for this? (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 5 years ago | (#27191953)

Always ask - cui bono?.

Re:Who is pushing for this? (1, Troll)

Steve Franklin (142698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27191967)

No, I think it's something specifically about the state of Utah. I mean, this is the only state in the Union that has a virtual state religion. A religion with such power over civil society that you can literally be arrested for smoking on the sidewalk outside of the Mormon Temple. That they would try to protect their own homegrown businesses from competition from the outside world is not surprising.

Re:Who is pushing for this? (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192449)

No, I think it's something specifically about the state of Utah. I mean, this is the only state in the Union that has a virtual state religion.

True, but that has nothing to do with this.

A religion with such power over civil society that you can literally be arrested for smoking on the sidewalk outside of the Mormon Temple.

Umm, you can be cited (not arrested) for smoking on any private property that posts "no smoking" signs. If when cited you refuse to stop smoking, then you can be arrested for disobeying lawful orders from police officers. The temple gets no special treatment in this regard. The area you're talking about is not a public sidewalk. There are public sidewalks next to the temple, and you can smoke on there. The area you're talking about is the private property between temple square and the church office buildings. It looks like a sidewalk, but it's purely private property, not adjacent to a public street.

There is some controversy over the fact that this private property used to be public property -- a section of main street -- but the church bought it from the city. The ACLU filed a lawsuit, but lost, and lost again on appeal. They lost essentially the same case for essentially the same reasons against The Venetian Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, which also purchased a section of public property from the city and then proceeded to place restrictions on its use.

That they would try to protect their own homegrown businesses from competition from the outside world is not surprising.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with religion. It's just protectionism.

There's no disputing that Utah is a unique state, and that the LDS church has a much greater influence over state politics than is healthy. For example, I think it's rather unfortunate that the LDS church was allowed to essentially write itself an exemption into the law regulating concealed carry of firearms, so the church can deny people the ability to defend themselves on church property.

However, that doesn't mean that *everything* that happens in the state is due to the church. Most of what goes on at the capitol building in Salt Lake neither interests nor is influenced by church leadership. This particular case is one that I can't see the church caring about, at all.

Re:Who is pushing for this? (1)

seann (307009) | more than 5 years ago | (#27197397)

sidewalks in canada are not private property.

sucks to be utah.

Re:Who is pushing for this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27201889)

If you just get a citation for smoking on the property of the Mormon church, count yourself lucky, because if you did it on my lawn I'd hook up to the local hydrant and blast you with a fire hose. I've got a large stock of gel-state gasoline and fertilizer in my garage and if it caught fire - well, let's just say Kaboom!

Re:Who is pushing for this? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193495)

RTFA:

aided in part by a 'yes' vote from Representative Jennifer Seelig, who also happens to be a lobbyist-employee of 1-800 Contacts, the principal advocate of HB 450.

It might be interesting to see where this outfit ended up in a bidding war for some keywords. I'm guessing its a case of sour grapes.

Utah? Can we replace your star? (4, Insightful)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 5 years ago | (#27191943)

Great! First Utah gives us Orrin Hatch and the DMCA and now this? Can the rest of America vote to replace Utah with Puerto Rico?

Re:Utah? Can we replace your star? (1)

Steve Franklin (142698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192015)

You forgot Mittens Helmet-hair.

As for trading--I'd rather see all those itsy bitsy western states with one or two representatives and two d--ned senators merged into one big state of El Diablo with two senators and as many representatives as they can actually justify by their real population. They could even paint it permanently blue if they wanted. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

Re:Utah? Can we replace your star? (1)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192145)

We'd call the result Alaska, except it's the wrong color. Must have been a mixup at the dye factory or something.

Someone better fix it, quick, or Palin's head will continue to expand until she really can see Russia from her house.

Re:Utah? Can we replace your star? (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192499)

I'd rather see all those itsy bitsy western states with one or two representatives and two d--ned senators merged into one big state of El Diablo with two senators and as many representatives as they can actually justify by their real population.

Utah has three representatives, fully justified by the population. In fact, Utah will be the next state to get another representative, because the population is right on the edge of justifying a fourth. At the moment, Utah's populace is the most poorly-represented in Congress in the country (numerically).

Actually, you may be interested to know that Utah originally proposed state boundaries that would have included much of the area you suggest for "El Diablo". It would have been called "Deseret", but it included most of the mountain west. Congress rejected the request and pared the state down to its present size.

Re:Utah? Can we replace your star? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193703)

>>>I'd rather see all those itsy bitsy western states with one or two representatives and two d--ned senators merged into one big state of El Diablo

Bad idea. However, seeing California subdivided into North and South California would be cool (similar to how Virginia State and Dakota Territory were divided in two). No one state should have 21% of the electoral college needed to become president. That's simply too much power to be held by a single government.

Also while we're at it, let's eliminate parties at the presidential level. Anyone who wishes to run must run independent. Like our first president did.

Re:Utah? Can we replace your star? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27192055)

I'm in. lets start the vote perhaps we can do something about Illinois as well.

Texas? Can we replace your star? (1)

Steve Franklin (142698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192225)

Hey, Carlos Norris wants to be the president of Texas. I say, let him have it. And then watch the Mexican drug lords eat his lunch for him without federal troops from Washington.

Re:Texas? Can we replace your star? (1)

atriusofbricia (686672) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193537)

Hey, Carlos Norris wants to be the president of Texas. I say, let him have it. And then watch the Mexican drug lords eat his lunch for him without federal troops from Washington.

Because Texas wouldn't have any troops of it's own [state.tx.us] would they?

Re:Utah? Can we replace your star? (1)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192071)

Umm and SCO Group. Don't forget SCO Group.

Call her what she is please (1)

Bald-Headed Geek (524573) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192105)

Funny how the label is "Representative" when a Democrat politician backs these insane Internet regulations.

Re:Call her what she is please (3, Insightful)

Steve Franklin (142698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192199)

Some of us don't look at the party affiliation before determining whether the position is stupid or not. Unlike the Neonuts who will complain about something when a Democrat does it and then laud it as just beneath the second coming of Christ when a Republican does it.

Re:Call her what she is please (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27192637)

All Democrat and all Republican politicians are bad people, and I do mean ALL. You know who is a good person? Someone who wants to vote out EVERY incumbent in every position in every level of government in the entire country, those crooks, liars, and cheats, and replace them ALL with people who are self-employed or small business owners or managers from middle America. Why business owners or managers? You need the management experience and business sense or you can't be expected to run a country. Why small business? Because these big business mother fuckers who currently run our country are not actually representative of most of us. Small business owners are, however. They personally operate their business. They are in touch with the people in their community. They know which government regulations hurt them, their business, and their community, because they feel it in their own pocket, unlike big business, which just hires an extra department to take care of compliance with absurd laws, laws which serve to do absolutely nothing good for the country, laws which serve ONLY for the sole purpose of raising the barrier to entry so these big businesses can remain big in the comfort of knowing that someone in his garage won't come up with a better way. No, we're sick of these people who come from some kind of high flying mega-inter-galactic-corporation to tell us how to live our lives while they do whatever they want, live above the law, and stuff their pockets and the pockets of their friends with our tax dollars, which they tax away at frankly outrageous rates. We need to vote out every damn incumbent. They've spent enough time there and with the amount of laws and regulations on the books tripling every five seconds, things are not getting better in America, they're becoming worse. When a Democrat does something, it borders on crime. When a Republican does something, it borders on crime. Bah! Vote them ALL out, send them ALL home, and replace them with new people. That's what I say.

Re:Call her what she is please (0, Flamebait)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193777)

When Bush announced withdrawing soldiers from Iraq by 2010, the TV media barely cared.

When Obama announced the same thing, the TV media was so cheerful I thought they were going to break-out in song..... and conveniently ignored the fact that 50,000 soldiers would still be there.

There is bias. TV reporters are almost all Democrats and it colors their reports.

Re:Call her what she is please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27194739)

Media bias is all over the place. Come on, W. wasn't that bad of a president, and you know what? While we're using middle initials, H. isn't that good of a president either. But every word George Walker Bush said, the media and the left were all over it with negativity, and every word Jesus Hussein Christ says today, the media are basking in the glow of his greatness. Media bias. The government is corrupt. The media is even more corrupt.

how it happened (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27192221)

The following cryptic phone messages were left for key voters in the Utah Senate:

Google enjoys sex with beagles

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?