As I understand it, the justifications for strong and detailed government oversight of commerce rests on two ideas:
- That government officials somehow have better incentives than private actors and are more likely to act in the interests of the general public
- That a few carefully selected smart people standing on top of the system managing top down can impose better structural solutions for markets than will emerge organically.
Readers will know in advance that I think both of these statements are total crap, but I don't need to explain the reasons yet again because Democrats in the House of Representatives just created the most clear refutation possible by making Maxine Waters the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services committee (which has oversight for the most regulated industry in this country).
Ms. Waters fails both these tests. She has a history of putting her own financial interests ahead of her oversight mission, and as far as the smart person standing at the top model, she has time and again demonstrated her complete lack of understanding of the very industry she regulates (well, either that or her entire career in Congress has actually been an elaborate bit of Dada-ist performance art).