The Big One- Supremes decimate federal regulation

[Michael Perelman]

I would go further than Ian here.  Regulation should sometimes defer to
the states, but only if the states do not do anything that the corps.
don't like.  For example, states are not supposed to put harsh regulations
on pesticides, so defer to the feds.  The only thing consistant in the
mishmash is that nothing is supposed to detract from profits.

On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 03:52:59PM -0700, Ian Murray wrote:
> Nay, the court has been locked into a regulatory mode that was simply
> exacerbated by the issues B. deals with. The whole
> regulatory/anti-regulatory binary is bogus-as the institutionalists
> pointed out long ago. Indeed, one of the heavy discussions amongst US
> greens is Nader's attachment to the regulatory-administrative State vis
> a vis addressing larger *constitutional* questions regarding industrial
> organization and theories of the 'large' corporation[s]...
> 
> Ian
> 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu