Congratulations to the Occupy movement.

[annewandering]

This link has an interesting article you might find that explains pretty well what it is is about. Its a very liberal site but if you can ignore that and just read the article. …And We Are Not Going to Take This Anymore! | Addicting Info

[Backroads]

This link has an interesting article you might find that explains pretty well what it is is about. Its a very liberal site but if you can ignore that and just read the article. …And We Are Not Going to Take This Anymore! | Addicting Info

Actually, that made perfect sense to me. Okay, I"ll accept a lack of structured purpose now that I get the ideal.

[Spartan117]

Why is that wrong? I'm gathering from various members of this site that it is morally wrong to be wealthy. Why is it morally wrong?

1 Timothy 6:10

For the love of money is the root of all evil

When you and 399 of your friends can outspend a third of the country, there's probably something out of place. So much power and influence spread across so few people does NOT help our economy, does not help social issues, it simply corrupts. These are the people who exploited the antitrust laws to make a five-fold fortune. All the while jobs are sailing overseas, the top companies are breaking profit records every single quarter, and the corporations these people invest in receive about a trillion dollars of tax money and avoid paying ANY taxes thanks to a loophole in the tax law. Our "free market" has gone from capitalism to corporate-socialism. But no one has noticed because the board of trustees for every major news station is filled with these 400 people, and instead of reporting on the state of our economy and society, they spend 6 months talking about how John Kerry looks French.

Does this sound like the land of promise to you? Or is iniquity abound? You know why there's a thousand people living on the sidewalk on Wall St.? Because they can't find work and the people responsible for creating the jobs are gambling away people's retirement money on the stock market.

The best part? This next presidential election we're going to elect another bought-and-sold suit who will work day and night to keep those 400 people as rich as possible.

We know better, and we as Latter-day Saints are held to a different standard ...

Doctrine and Covenants 70:14*

Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld.

Doctrine and Covenants 78:6*

For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things

[Backroads]

Okay, Spartan, I'm going to throw a summary at you; please correct me if I'm mistaken.

You're not against Joe Anybody starting a successful business and making a few million dollars or whatever--as long as he did it with reasonal ethics.

You are suspicious of the ethics of those who do have billions upon billions of dollars and wonder if any laws were tiptoed around.

You feel no one really needs billions upon billions of dollars.

You feel it would be nice for American job opportunies to stay in America.

You think certains laws should be tightened/altered/created in order to keep in check those who are putting money over morals.

[Spartan117]

Okay, Spartan, I'm going to throw a summary at you; please correct me if I'm mistaken.

You're not against Joe Anybody starting a successful business and making a few million dollars or whatever--as long as he did it with reasonal ethics.

You are suspicious of the ethics of those who do have billions upon billions of dollars and wonder if any laws were tiptoed around.

You feel no one really needs billions upon billions of dollars.

You feel it would be nice for American job opportunies to stay in America.

You think certains laws should be tightened/altered/created in order to keep in check those who are putting money over morals.

I don't have any "wonder" if laws and regulations get ignored. I think some businesses look at the law as a financial matter and not a legal one. If it's more cost effective to pay the fine for breaking a law than to change your operation so you aren't breaking the law, I think we end up with oil spills in the gulf of mexico.

I'm not sure why you rewrote my post into neat little group of statements I didn't make, but I will not help you "summarize" me into something I didn't say. That's crazy talk.

[Backroads]

I don't have any "wonder" if laws and regulations get ignored. I think some businesses look at the law as a financial matter and not a legal one. If it's more cost effective to pay the fine for breaking a law than to change your operation so you aren't breaking the law, I think we end up with oil spills in the gulf of mexico.

I'm not sure why you rewrote my post into neat little group of statements I didn't make, but I will not help you "summarize" me into something I didn't say. That's crazy talk.

I deeply apologize.

I was trying to summarize the movement, which is what I assume you were defending.

Here's where I got my thoughts:

You feel no one really needs billions upon billions of dollars.

So much power and influence spread across so few people does NOT help our economy, does not help social issues, it simply corrupts.

You're not against Joe Anybody starting a successful business and making a few million dollars or whatever--as long as he did it with reasonal ethics.

1 Timothy 6:10

For the love of money is the root of all evil

You are suspicious of the ethics of those who do have billions upon billions of dollars and wonder if any laws were tiptoed around.

You think certains laws should be tightened/altered/created in order to keep in check those who are putting money over morals.

the corporations these people invest in receive about a trillion dollars of tax money and avoid paying ANY taxes thanks to a loophole in the tax law.

You feel it would be nice for American job opportunies to stay in America.

All the while jobs are sailing overseas

Edited October 12, 2011 by Backroads

[JudoMinja]

From what I understand about the protesters, I don't think they're protesting against rich people being rich, I think they're protesting about the rich getting richer while the poor and middle class have stayed stagnant. So, it's not that being rich is morally wrong, but the rich being self-serving (according to them) is morally wrong. For example:

Now, the fact that this phenomenon is occurring isn't really controversial: it's really an economic fact at this point. The question is, then, whether this phenomenon is wrong (and therefore something we should seek to correct) or whether it is good and normal.

Woohoo! I'm on the way, way, way low end of the bottom 90% and if I can manage to get one of these jobs I've applied for that actually have something to do with my major, I'll shoot up to the average of the bottom 90%! Yay for me!

One problem I have with the graph above- It shows the AVERAGE income for each percentage. While there is a huge disparity between the average income of the "bottom 90%" and the "top 5-10%", that's to be expected when you're averaging out about 90% MORE incomes- and I'm guessing this includes the unemployed. It's a great graph. Really gives a good visual of the problem. But I'd like to see them put together a graph that actually shows the distribution across each "percentage" evenly. Maybe the disparity wouldn't seem so huge with a graph like that...

Plus, one also needs to take into account how many people each of these incomes are supposed to be supporting- maybe a per-capita average? For instance, my income is supposed to be supporting two people. Right now I have to get assistance, because I don't make enough to get by. If I can get one of these jobs that will pay me about $30k a year, that will cover two people just fine even though it's only the average of the bottom 90%. I don't really need more than that. And if I get my masters, I can get a job that pays even more. Get married and include whatever income the new hubby brings in, that's even more. I probably won't break that "bottom 90%" but then, my dad doesn't even make enough to fit into the "top 5-10%" category and he's supported a family of 7 (himself, my stay-at-home-mom, and five kids) just fine. More than just fine. We've never wanted for anything.

Personally, the only problem I have with the economy right now is that a lot of people seem to have skills that are basically "useless" when you consider the jobs they end up having to take. I am way overeducated for the job I have right now, but am having a hard time getting a job that actually uses my skills. My brother has tons of management experience and a little education under his belt but can't get a better job than a shift-supervisor at a pizza place. My sister has a bachelors in mathematics and a teaching certificate but is working a minimum wage job at Curves, and her hubby has a bachelors in public affairs and is working on his masters but works for JCPenny. My mom has a nursing license but hasn't been able to find a job at all. My dad just lost his job recently and is getting unemployment while he tries to find another.

I don't think there's a problem with the "rich getting richer". Yeah, it may be pretty upsetting to see some successful people with a whole ton of money while the majority are just scraping by. But I don't think they're the ones to blame for our situation. I think we are overpopulated, too many people with good skills and education that they can't seem to find jobs to put to use. There's a bunch of people working hard, working their bums off, getting educated and not finding any good paying work, because there aren't enough good paying jobs to go around.

Edited October 13, 2011 by JudoMinja

[LittleWyvern]

One problem I have with the graph above- It shows the AVERAGE income for each percentage. While there is a huge disparity between the average income of the "bottom 90%" and the "top 5-10%", that's to be expected when you're averaging out about 90% MORE incomes- and I'm guessing this includes the unemployed. It's a great graph. Really gives a good visual of the problem. But I'd like to see them put together a graph that actually shows the distribution across each "percentage" evenly. Maybe the disparity wouldn't seem so huge with a graph like that...

Well, that wouldn't make a lot of sense. The point of the graph is to show differences within social classes. So, with any observational study, to avoid making a graph incorporates lurking variables you group the people you want to observe into what are called strata, or groups that share things in common. Since the study is attempting to observe the increase of the disparity (not, as you mentioned, the disparity itself) between social classes, the only way to do that would be to group the strata based on social class. A straight distribution across percentages would conflate different social classes (or, in some cases, split them up) and not give us any meaningful conclusions as to what we were trying to find out in the first place. This also applies to a "per capita" strategy.

I don't think there's a problem with the "rich getting richer". Yeah, it may be pretty upsetting to see some successful people with a whole ton of money while the majority are just scraping by. But I don't think they're the ones to blame for our situation. I think we are overpopulated, too many people with good skills and education that they can't seem to find jobs to put to use. There's a bunch of people working hard, working their bums off, getting educated and not finding any good paying work, because there aren't enough good paying jobs to go around.

I guess that's the million dollar question: what is the reason behind the sharp increase in economic inequality over the past 10-20 years? I won't pretend to know the answer to this question, but I will note this: according to a calculation called the Gini Coefficient, the USA now is #5 in the world for income inequality, behind only Namibia, Zimbabwe, Denmark(?), and Switzerland. It's pretty crazy.

[JudoMinja]

Well, that wouldn't make a lot of sense. The point of the graph is to show differences within social classes. So, with any observational study, to avoid making a graph incorporates lurking variables you group the people you want to observe into what are called strata, or groups that share things in common. Since the study is attempting to observe the increase of the disparity (not, as you mentioned, the disparity itself) between social classes, the only way to do that would be to group the strata based on social class. A straight distribution across percentages would conflate different social classes (or, in some cases, split them up) and not give us any meaningful conclusions as to what we were trying to find out in the first place. This also applies to a "per capita" strategy.

Ok, college level- I've only taken one statistics class and one economics class.... The majority of my statistical analysis experience has been with animal populations, so bear with me here. I'm trying to make sure I understand this.

What exactly are the social classes they are identifying here? And are they trying to say that the bottom 90% are all in one social class while the top ten are another? It seemed to me it was trying to show the uneven distribution of wealth, and that the difference has been increasing.

If you take the income of the ten percent of the population that makes the most money and average out what they make, of course it is going to be much higher than compared the the average of the other ninety percent. That other ninety percent is going to have incomes ranging from 0 all the way to whatever you decided to use as your cut-off- from the look of the graph about $125k. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's normal. And there are certainly going to be more "small-pay" jobs than "big-pay" jobs, because you need a lot of "worker ants" to run a hive but only one "queen". I'm sure some won't like me comparing them to ants, but it makes sense to me.

So, they're just trying to identify that the difference between the "worker ants" and the "queen ants" is big and getting bigger? Why, necessarily, would that be upsetting? I'd have a problem if there was no moving between social classes- if "worker ants" are stuck always being worker ants and can't seem to make anything more even if they have skills to use. Or if people weren't making enough to support their families- why I think a "per capita" graph might be better.

Also, is the difference between the "20-10%" and the "top 10%" as big as the difference between the "bottom 90%" and the "top 10%"? That, to me, would be a bigger concern and a better sign of inequality.

[Spartan117]

I deeply apologize.

I was trying to summarize the movement, which is what I assume you were defending.

No no no, I should have thrown a smiley or a in there, I was teasing about summary thing. No apology necessary. I forget sometimes that my sarcasm might be difficult to spot in a written post.

Apologies.

[Dravin]

So, they're just trying to identify that the difference between the "worker ants" and the "queen ants" is big and getting bigger? Why, necessarily, would that be upsetting?

I think if it's disturbing or not boils down to if you feel there is a limited amount of pie going around. If you feel that Joe's slice means you get less then the size of his piece getting bigger each year is disturbing.

You have (made up numbers)

100 pie units per year.

Year 1:

You 10 pie units, him 40 pie units.

Year 2:

You 11 pie units, him 45 pie units.

Year 3:

You 12 pie units, him 60 Pie units.

The thought is out there that you (or someone else) would be getting more pie units if he wasn't hogging them. The fact that he's increasing his share (and obviously the model above is simplistic because the economy grows over time, it's set up that way) faster than you leaves you in a situation where he's getting an increasingly larger piece of the pie and you can't possibly keep pace. Thus the frustration, people want a piece of the pie and they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that Wall-street is body checking them away from the dessert table unfairly. Then adding inflation makes matters worse from that perspective, you grab 12 but prices have inflated so it's really like 10 but he grabbed 60 and it's like having 50, he's ahead but you are in the same spot and (once again the perspective from what I can tell) because he hogged all the pie. If he'd let you have 17 to his 55 you'd both be ahead and feeling good.

Edit: It should be noted I am not endorsing the view, or it's opposite, I'm just sharing the viewpoint as I understand it.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Dravin

[estradling75]

Or we could consider the parable of the Talents... Were those that have more get more

[Spartan117]

Or we could consider the parable of the Talents... Were those that have more get more

What happened to the one who didn't use his talent? I think he buried it in the backyard or in a safety deposit box or something

[estradling75]

What happened to the one who didn't use his talent? I think he buried it in the backyard or in a safety deposit box or something

It got handed over to the one with the most in the end... ie God took from the 99% and gave to the 1%

[Spartan117]

God took from the 99% and gave to the 1%

That doesn't sound like something Heavenly Father would do. From what I've heard, He offers us ALL He has, even being joint-heirs with His only begotten.

He spreads the wealth around.

[estradling75]

That doesn't sound like something Heavenly Father would do. From what I've heard, He offers us ALL He has, even being joint-heirs with His only begotten.

He spreads the wealth around.

I fully confess that it was a flippant take on the parable given the context of the thread

[john doe]

That doesn't sound like something Heavenly Father would do. From what I've heard, He offers us ALL He has, even being joint-heirs with His only begotten.

He spreads the wealth around.

Seems to me that we (his children) have some responsibility in that contract. He is not obligated if we do nothing to hold up our end of the deal.

[LittleWyvern]

Ok, college level- I've only taken one statistics class and one economics class.... The majority of my statistical analysis experience has been with animal populations, so bear with me here. I'm trying to make sure I understand this.

What exactly are the social classes they are identifying here? And are they trying to say that the bottom 90% are all in one social class while the top ten are another? It seemed to me it was trying to show the uneven distribution of wealth, and that the difference has been increasing.

Well, the classes they are identifying are exactly what you see at the left side of the graph. Since the definition of what constitutes "upper class" and "middle class" are hopelessly vague, they made social classes based on income percentile. Since the point of the graph was to see how the income of the rich compares with everybody else, they made that bottom 90% and designated that as "not rich." And, since "rich" is vague, they made a lot of "rich" categories. In order to show, say, how the "middle class" compares to the "lower class," you'd have to make different strata and sample the different groups.

If you take the income of the ten percent of the population that makes the most money and average out what they make, of course it is going to be much higher than compared the the average of the other ninety percent. That other ninety percent is going to have incomes ranging from 0 all the way to whatever you decided to use as your cut-off- from the look of the graph about $125k. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's normal. And there are certainly going to be more "small-pay" jobs than "big-pay" jobs, because you need a lot of "worker ants" to run a hive but only one "queen". I'm sure some won't like me comparing them to ants, but it makes sense to me.

So, they're just trying to identify that the difference between the "worker ants" and the "queen ants" is big and getting bigger? Why, necessarily, would that be upsetting?

Well, yeah. That's just math, because they chose percentiles. Of course the average top 10% of incomes will be more than the bottom 90% of incomes. No matter how the wealth is spread in the population you'll always get that. There must, then, be a different purpose to the graph.

I'd have a problem if there was no moving between social classes- if "worker ants" are stuck always being worker ants and can't seem to make anything more even if they have skills to use.

And that's exactly what this graph shows: the bottom 90% are stuck, while the top 10% continue to get richer and richer.

Or if people weren't making enough to support their families- why I think a "per capita" graph might be better.

That would be an entirely different set of data. Maybe somebody else will do that study.

Also, is the difference between the "20-10%" and the "top 10%" as big as the difference between the "bottom 90%" and the "top 10%"? That, to me, would be a bigger concern and a better sign of inequality.

Hm. If we had access to the original data we could find that out, but all we have is the data in the graph.

[Spartan117]

Seems to me that we (his children) have some responsibility in that contract. He is not obligated if we do nothing to hold up our end of the deal.

That is my understanding as well. He is no respecter of persons either, He gives everyone the chance to hear about the restored "contract" and lets each person chose to accept the terms or not.

I guess the difference would be that if you hold up your end of contract and live up to your obligations, He won't foreclose on your house ..er... mansion that He prepared for you. You'll get to keep what you earn. He will even let us work overtime and have the chance to live with Him! No exclusive club here!

He is perfectly just too, He will never send your tax ..er... tithing money, to pay bonuses to people who didn't keep up with their obligations. He'd never reward people for being greedy, or irresponsible, or criminally negligent with other peoples money. He holds people accountable for their actions, and doesn't hand over $700 Billion to complete morons who can't balance a checkbook.

It will be a good time when we finally get to live in a world like that.

[FunkyTown]

Big Soros Money Linked to “Occupy Wall Street”

After the bail out of Fannie and Freddie, Banks, Auto Companies, Wall Street and Big G' handing out our money to all their friends, I would think if people were concerned with the Rich getting Richer they would be staging protests against The White House and Congress and State Capitals.

Absurd. Not acknowledging a movement that encompasses many of the places that are your strongest bulwark of supporters would be political suicide.

As the movement has grown across the country, you are going to see politicians giving the movement a "wink n' nod". Because to do otherwise would be stupid.

Occupy Wall Street Gains Measured Support From Some Republican Candidates

Edited October 14, 2011 by estradling75
Political Candidates

[FunkyTown]

So what differs between the power imbalance and the people who are merely successful enough to be making lots of money? Is it possible to be making millions fairly?

Sure. Henry Ford? He created jobs and acted fairly. The problem, as I've stated several times, is the system of investments and the way it attracts a certain type of person. Specifically: Alpha male risk takers who are playing with essentially monopoly money.

I'm not going to describe it again like that, but instead I'll put it to you another way.

There's a man. He's playing a game of darts with a spinning dart board with you trussed up on the dart board. During times of plenty, the board is bigger and easier to hit spots that aren't you. During other times, the dartboard gets smaller and harder to accurately hit. The closer to you the darts hit without actually hitting you, the more money the guy gets paid. If he hits a spot that isn't you, he gets money - His company gives him a big payday. If he hits you, he has to go to another company where another dartboard is hung up - With you still being on the dartboard.

This is similar to Wall Street: Riskier investments tend to pay off more. Bubbles are those investments which are seemingly safe as they seem to be making a lot of money, but because there is a ceiling to how much a market can contain before oversaturation occurs(See the housing and dotcom bubbles) that market eventually collapses.

This would be fine if ethical people were the ones controlling the purse strings. They are not, because people are not ethical in general. Unethical people, playing with money that isn't theirs in the hope of a giant payday, are making risky investments and jumping on to bandwagons for ridiculous sums of money.

This is not class warfare. The superwealthy investment bankers are not the ones who suffer when their plans go awry. It's you and me.

[JudoMinja]

And that's exactly what this graph shows: the bottom 90% are stuck, while the top 10% continue to get richer and richer.

This is the only part I'm still having trouble seeing. I don't see how this shows that we're "stuck". It may be very very difficult to step up the ladder to be as rich as the top 10%, but then they wouldn't be the top 10% anymore. They'd be to top 20% or 30%...

I don't see how this shows I'm stuck always making the same amount of money or less. There's quite a bit of leeway in that bottom 90. I don't think being in there is the same as being in poverty or being "stuck". And I'm sure a lot of people reach a certain level of income and become happy where they are. They don't necessarily want more money or to work harder to get as rich as the top 10. What they make is enough, and they are content. I think my dad is a perfect example of that-

He's been a hard worker all his life. He grew up with a big family and his parents were always just scraping by. They'd collect alluminum cans just to have enough to put food on the table. Growing up like that motivated my dad to work hard. He joined the army at 17 and worked his way up. He got his bachelors in computer science, and when he retired from the army got another job working with computers. He went from "poverty" to a job that paid him about $80k a year (plus his retirement pension and disability from the army). I don't think that's "stuck". I think if that's really all this graph was trying to show then it does a pretty poor job of it and that it's basically useless.

I really think the real problem is a lack of jobs. There just aren't enough "high-pay" jobs to go around, and with the recent economy issues it's gotten worse. That is why, now, despite all my dad's hard work moving up the scale he is now facing unemployment. Why my brother, sister, brother-in-law, mom, and myself can't seem to find work that actually utilizes the skills we've built. There used to be enough jobs to go around. Enough that we grew up thinking we could be "whatever we want" as long as we worked hard enough to get there. Now though, we are realizing that the jobs we "want" are all taken. We have to dig deeper and search more and take on minimum-wage positions while we try to figure out what jobs are actually available and work on the skills needed to get those jobs.

That is why people are feeling "stuck" and unhappy, I think. I don't think the "rich" are stealing all the pie, because it's not like they are stealing all he jobs. They're just getting really rich with the jobs they have, or the risky investments they make. I don't think money = pie. I think jobs = pie. I think the problems with overpopulation is resulting in a lack of jobs and therefore less "pie". People can't all get exactly what they "want" anymore because we have to pick and choose and squeeze our way into positions that may not necessarily be something we really wanted to do and may not pay as much as we would have liked to make.

[Spartan117]

This is not class warfare. The superwealthy investment bankers are not the ones who suffer when their plans go awry. It's you and me.

"Privatizing Profits and Socializing Losses" is not capitalism. Another phrase that is used is "Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor" which describes corporate welfare pretty accurately. Economists consider the recent bank bailouts in the United States to be corporate welfare.

A study was done where economists put together a model that demonstrated the "rich getting richer" regardless of the economic climate. Further concentration of wealth is the outcome every time.

"The irony is that the economic diversity that helps ensure the presence of some successful enterprises and spurs economic growth could be lost if the success of these enterprises undermines economic diversity," said Fargione. "To retain the benefits of a diverse capitalist economy, we need economic policies that counter what seems to be the innate tendency for economies to concentrate wealth and become less diverse."

The simulations showed that a tax (or other mandatory donation to the public good) on the largest inherited fortunes would short-circuit the over-concentration of wealth. But the researchers stress that their point is to advocate not a particular policy, but a policy that accomplishes the goal of protecting long-term economic stability.

When the interests of an individual business are put before the interests of the economy as a whole by getting bailouts or any other form or corporate welfare then the entire system is weakened. When businesses fail, they need to be able to fail all the way.

You give $171B in tax money to companies that break the record for highest losses in corporate history, posting well over $100B in losses across 5 straight quarters, and think that pushing a cancer back into the system will make things better? That messes everyone's business models and destabilizes the economy further and further until it collapses.

[FunkyTown]

Yep. I don't think anyone can deny that throwing cash down the gullet of financial vampires is bad.

I could make a counterpoint to the pure-capitalism approach you seem to be espousing, but I'm not going to be arguing a statement you haven't made.

It seems to me that the problem lies in the nation as a whole. There is a sickness of short-sightedness and self-interest that goes from the bottom to the top. Everything from not buying locally, which causes jobs to flee the local area, to politicians serving special interest groups as they're the ones most likely to vote, to investment bankers taking ridiculous risks with money that isn't theirs, to corporate CEOs making greedy and short-sighted decisions that affect millions.

"Privatizing Profits and Socializing Losses" is not capitalism. Another phrase that is used is "Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor" which describes corporate welfare pretty accurately. Economists consider the recent bank bailouts in the United States to be corporate welfare.

A study was done where economists put together a model that demonstrated the "rich getting richer" regardless of the economic climate. Further concentration of wealth is the outcome every time.

When the interests of an individual business are put before the interests of the economy as a whole by getting bailouts or any other form or corporate welfare then the entire system is weakened. When businesses fail, they need to be able to fail all the way.

You give $171B in tax money to companies that break the record for highest losses in corporate history, posting well over $100B in losses across 5 straight quarters, and think that pushing a cancer back into the system will make things better? That messes everyone's business models and destabilizes the economy further and further until it collapses.

[Spartan117]

I could make a counterpoint to the pure-capitalism approach you seem to be espousing, but I'm not going to be arguing a statement you haven't made.

Oh I wouldn't say I'm a pure capitalist. I am clearly for the removal of government intrusion to the private sector, but only in instances where it does something unconstitutional. Like dumping a trillion tax dollars in the middle of Wall Street. The government should set the rules, not rig the game.

There is never a situation where it would be okay for the federal govt to bailout a corporation. Ever. I do not think a laissez-faire market is the way to go, though. Deregulation has directly contributed to the biggest corporate scandals in history. In Enron's case, deregulation was the facilitator for the CA energy crisis, and quadrupled Enron's profits in a single year.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Blind_Faith.PDF

Because of Enron’s new, unregulated power auction, the company’s 'Wholesale Services' revenues quadrupled—from $12 billion in the first quarter of 2000 to $48.4 billion in the first quarter of 2001.

Anyone who suggests that deregulation had no part in the financial crisis of our time is either naive to a fault, or dumb beyond reason.