"
Any industry would be proud of an average annual growth rate of 34% over ten years and of a global reach from Austria to Taiwan. But the headlong expansion of exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which by May this year controlled almost $1.5 trillion of assets (not far short of the $2 trillion in hedge funds), has become a matter for concern among financial regulators. Could ETFs be the next source of financial scandal, or even of systemic risk?" Characterizing the Financial sector "like a hyperactive child" that "can never leave a good thing be",
The Economist appears to be
wishing for the
ETFs to be
better regulated because "it would be a shame if reckless expansion spoiled a good innovation".
posted by vidur
on Jun 26, 2011 -
28 comments
Dems eye midnight regulations reversal. Congressional Democrats are eyeing a little-known, Clinton-era law as a way to reverse Bush administration midnight regulations — even ones that have already taken effect. “Fortunately, [the White House] made a mistake,” said a top Senate Democratic aide.
[more inside]
posted by netbros
on Nov 14, 2008 -
76 comments
Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear. "Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination."
posted by homunculus
on Apr 3, 2008 -
77 comments
Environmentalism, globalization and national economies, 1980-2000 [
Schofer and
Granados in
Social Forces, Dec 06] Triple-punch! (1) "We find no impact of environmentalism on foreign investment and trade. Firms and investment do not appear to be fleeing countries with strong environmental standards." (2) "While it is common to assume that environmentalism targets industry, the agricultural sector may be [negatively] affected more significantly." (2) "[S]ociologists influenced by world-system theory [posit that] the relationship between environmentalism and growth could be spurious: environmentalism does not cause growth, but rather coincides with the economic success of core nations. However, broader results do not support this."
posted by Firas
on May 19, 2007 -
6 comments
Last Chance. "It took the Mississippi River 6,000 years to build the Louisiana coast. It took man (and natural disasters) 75 years to destroy it. Experts agree we have 10 years to act before the problem is too big to solve."
[Via First Draft.]
posted by homunculus
on Mar 5, 2007 -
19 comments
The Next Attack. "Terrorists in Iraq are becoming proficient at blowing up
oil refineries. Similar plants in a handful of American
cities represent our greatest vulnerability. We could
easily be making them less dangerous. But we’re not." And one of the key players in keeping things that way happens to be
Dick Cheney’s son-in-law.
posted by homunculus
on Mar 1, 2007 -
38 comments
FTC creates national ‘do not call’ list While there have been state lists for quite some time, and some organizations (like the
DMA) maintain do-not-call lists requiring members to honor DNC requests, the FCC is now talking about a single, federal list that would require compliance from all telemarketers, and levy fines for non-compliance. Is this the end of telemarketing as we know it today?
posted by MidasMulligan
on Dec 18, 2002 -
40 comments
Smoke 'em if you can get 'em? Philip Morris' decision to support FDA regulation of cigarettes has smoke coming from between my ears trying to figure it out. Good, bad, victims of the cigarette tax money-grab?
posted by fncll
on Jul 26, 2002 -
33 comments
Legally, is a computer more like a TV, a pen, a radio, a CD player or a shortwave radio (or a hat, a brooch or a pterodactyl)? "Last month the top executives of two of the most powerful media companies in the world traveled to Washington to testify before Congress about the most dangerous threat they face: the American consumer." As in most computer piracy discussions, this
NYTimes article (reg. req'd) analogizes computers to existing technologies:
"airplanes, telephones, watches and televisions." Isn't the problem that no existing precedent really fits? To me, a computer is at once a communications tool, an entertainment (audio and video) device, a content creator, a copier, and much, much more. The laws regulating each of those things vary significantly, and in some cases approach mutual exclusivity, and for good reason. How can one device satisfy all of them?
(oh, and via blogdex)
posted by Sinner
on Mar 13, 2002 -
14 comments
Did Max Bickford get a v-chip implant? "...the FCC ruined television throughout the 1990s by allowing mega corporations and multinationals to gobble up TV networks and distribution outlets, including cable and satellite companies..."
Now that the big corporations own the content, they obviously have the right to change it. It's capitalism, pure and simple, but it may also mean bad TV. Does the goverment have the right, responsiblity, or obligation to to re-regulate the industry, just so the quality of programming improves?
posted by bingo
on Feb 15, 2002 -
14 comments
The problem isn't too much greed, but too much cowardly greed. "Spineless lenders, weak-kneed investors and meddling regulators intent on reducing risk pose a greater threat to the global economy than the volatile financial markets... 'The critic's image of the global financial markets as a giant casino is wrong," [writes British financial writer Daniel Ben-Ami], 'On the contrary, the modern financial markets are more often characterized by a fear of risk-taking than a reckless disregard for danger.'"
posted by tranquileye
on Aug 2, 2001 -
6 comments
HR 1542, the so-called
Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act, will do exactly the opposite of what its name implies, reducing Internet freedom and broadband deployment by eliminating many regulations designed to force the Bells into being more competitive, and also by outlawing voice over IP.
From the article: "This bill ... does nothing more than strip-mine the remaining competitive safeguards of the current law, green-lighting the Bells to bludgeon any remaining competitors into oblivion."
posted by donkeymon
on May 8, 2001 -
4 comments
Author Caleb Carr argues in favor of
government regulation of the Internet. He suggests that if we don't have government making the rules, the corporations will make them instead. (Yeah, it's a Salon link. You got a problem with that? Keep it to yourself.)
posted by jjg
on Jan 10, 2001 -
21 comments
Tell Congress you want Low Power Radio! There is a bill before the Senate that would gut the FCC's ability to license low power radio. Click the link to tell your reps that you think S3020, which prohibits LPR, should be voted down. We like free speech here, right? We like having the right to use our own airwaves, right? Click the link, type in your ZIP and spread some legislative love, babies.
posted by RakDaddy
on Oct 11, 2000 -
20 comments
FCC: Open up AOL’s messaging "Federal regulators could force America Online Inc. to open its popular instant-messaging service to rivals as a condition of approving its acquisition of Time Warner Inc." I think this is good news for instant messaging, but I'm never really comfortable with the government forcing such things. What do you think?
posted by ericost
on Sep 13, 2000 -
15 comments
Advertising on Your GPS Reciever It looks like advertisers are already dreaming up new uses for the higher quality GPS signals.
"You're walking down the block, your phone goes off as you pass every store and tells you that there's a 50-percent-off sale."
Someone remind me why it was a good idea to deregulate the GPS?
posted by darainwa
on May 27, 2000 -
4 comments
U.S. Likely to Seek Break-Up of Microsoft-Source "Under the recommendation, one part would manufacture the Windows operating system, including functions to browse the Internet. The second company would market everything else -- including the Microsoft Office programs -- and would also be allowed to sell Internet software, the source said."
posted by bvanveen
on Apr 24, 2000 -
17 comments
If one wants to register a domain, one should go to
Joker. No, that price, twenty bucks a year, isn't a joke, nor are their any more catches than with InterNIC. And you thought ICANN and de-regulation wouldn't do anything good.
posted by tdecius
on Oct 12, 1999 -
0 comments
