byline goes here

A few days before the 2006 Congressional elections, my brother called and asked me if I had read a column that morning by David Brooks of the New York Times. He really liked it because it flagged the idea that the Congressional elections would likely not go the Republicans' way (they didn't) and would further signal what Brooks called "the end of conservative dominance. This election is a period, not a comma in political history."

At dinner last night, my brother brought up the column's main idea and asked the table: does the Wall Street bailout signal a clear end of the deregulation that has been in vogue for nearly 30 years? Is this a period for free market economics rather than a comma?


I said I think it does, and for some time. Others disagreed. But can you imagine the kinds of deregulation we saw of the transportation or energy industries in the 1970s or even the relatively mild telecommunications deregulation of the 1990s happening today? Hard to believe there was momentum about privatizing Social Security just a few short years ago.

In fact, some economists are wondering not if, but how much, industry regulation will increase across the board in the next few years.

Thoughts?

Quick bonus note: look at what Brooks said in that column about the 2008 presidential elections nearly two years ago:

"In the near term, the candidates who thrive will be those who offer a new way of politics. This might be the maverick independence of McCain, or the ostentatiously deliberative style of Obama, or it could be the manner of somebody whom none of us are even thinking about. Candidates who seem conventional will have a tough time. This includes Hillary Clinton."

3:05 - October 9, 2008

What is this?

Share