http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

Economics as a school of thought and a social science has existed for a blink of an eye in human historical terms. Its existence has also happened to coincide with the final stages (probably) of an upward stage in a secular population cycle. These cycles show up with a period of 200-300 years, with the upward stages characterised by stability and relative prosperity and the downward trend in population characterised by instability and declining prosperity. The upward trend in population density reverses once the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment – which in turn is defined purely by the population density and the technology available to extract resources (note this is not an ‘environmental’ or ‘ecological’ argument, simply a long standing fact of human existence).

During the upward trend of increasing prosperity it is generally the case that adding another human increases everyones prosperity via economy of scale and additional specialisation. During the downward trend, adding another human actually decreases prosperity. How valid will currently ‘accepted’ economic models developed during a secular bull market in population and human utility that has lasted 500 years be once that market turns bearish?

During the downtrend, which may well have begun already, the study of the application of power on a vast scale (see machiavelli, confucius) will be increasingly more relevant than the study of economics and markets. The simple truth is that what the anglo-american governments decide to do or not to do regarding market regulation is going to have little effect on the way the world works in 50 years time.

Should white-collar criminals be coddled? Certainly not; they should be put in “general population” with the rest of the convicts. But exacting harsher punishments is inadequate to prevent future crimes, IMO.

Regulations and laws are worthless when they are not strongly and consistently enforced. The only sure way to discourage disobedience of laws and regulations is to make the penalties severe enough that few or [hopefully] none would want to risk the consequences if caught.

Though not palatable to PC America, for financial crimes, in my mind that would mean taking away ALL their assets in any form AND public punishment, ranging from the stocks to the guillotine (Madoff, etc.), depending on the severity of violation plus mandatory prison time (if still alive). They would go to a regular prison also, no white-collar paradise where they can lounge around and play tennis or golf.

And their punishment must be put on a fast track so that it occurs soon, while their deeds are still fresh in the minds of the public.

this: “I am surprised you would find advocating compassionate help “maybe worse”. ”
wasn’t the point I was trying to make.

I was saying: maybe worse would be that: any thief could claim to be starving, if given : “Yes, but you are free to define it that way, and so am I. Correctness, like truth, depends on perception and interpretation of the “facts”” as the set point.

Transor Z’s point-out: “Sir, if you would debate with me, first define your terms.”

Is what’s at play..

past that, I do suggest you do some reading @ http://www.mises.org I’m fairly sure you’ll find that your assumptions are mistaken..

Back to the original subject, I loved George Orwell’s 1984, as well as David Bowie’s Diamond Dogs, But for hard core Sci-fi disfunctional future literature John Brunner is the best.

What we have seen the last few years hasn’t been a case of no rules, it has been a case of bad officiating. In a football game the refs keep the players honest, but who keeps the refs honest? The fact that their decisions are made in front of everyone at the game, watching on TV, and recorded to be played over and over. A mistake here or there is understandable, but what if the ref were to continue to refuse to call any penalties at all against one team regardless of their infractions of the rules. ?

So there is no game without rules, but transparency is absolutely necessary to keep the regulators honest.

It appears that finance is mostly about one actor obfuscating real risk to convince another that it’s not as risky as it really is.