Using the example of copyright and patent regulation and the recent "too big to fail" financial industry bailout, Baker makes an enlightening and compelling case that neither political party is really in favor of deregulation. While he sites no independent experts in making his case, he holds expert status himself (see bio link). A great read!

Not well sourced but very well written. The claims used for evidence are not so controversial that the shortfall in sources is much of a problem.

This opinion piece effectively makes the case that as we look across the spectrum of commerical activities, the issue is not really more or less regulations but rather what type of regulation and for the benefit of whom. The mechanisms suggested for dealing with intellecutal property may not be practical across all areas of endeavor but the discussion is rational and engaging. The same goes for the bankruptcy discussion. The piece makes a departure, though, in treating "too big to fail" as a regulation rather than a mind set. The former is formally established while the latter isn't. So with regard to financial institutions, the issue may actually be whether to have more regulation.

an enlightening and refreshing look at how our economics system works in interactivity with government. written with understandable examples and clear explanation. i imagine that the average person is unaware of this type of analysis. it seems that our congressional representatives are either unaware of it or content with the status quo since, as implied here, change in regulations would be less wasteful and accomplish more in achieving desired goals.. the writer refrains from including his own ideology and goals.

A very concise description of economic regulation, this tears away instinctual definitions and redefines arguments for or against public supervision of private affairs. This is an intellectual challenge to both liberals and conservatives. Neither likely understands regulation issues as well as they think they do.

This is an excellent essay examining the fundamental issues in the debate about regulation in this country.

Very interesting article explaining the nature of what is generally considered "the free market", and how it has largely been controlled through the years through government intervention (patents, copyrights, legislation). While interesting, it gets a little too side-tracked in explanations of some "examples", and thus takes a while to get to the thrust of the argument (and overall it could stand to be a little more concise). However, it shows a nice view of the big picture of what the government's role is (and could be) in how our economy operates. Recommended reading.

My compliments to the Boston Globe for featuring this economics special report. Dean Baker has thought this through in the course of his research and produced a superb article laying out the way to regulate the economy in a fair and deliberate way, forsaking the "more or less" regulation model that has only served to obfuscate the motives of the political factions. What more can you ask of a reporter?

There are a lot of disparate conceptualizations presented in this article that promote thinking about regulation issues. The article seems to overreach in extending ideas from patent, copyright, and bankruptcy as generalities that preempt other views of regulation in all other arenas. The results of right wing policies are not distinguished from the intents of right wing politicians, nor from their dissembling justifications for those policies.

I thought the article was balanced and caused me to think about the issues it raised.

It actually addresses the issues, rather than just responding mindlessly to what government officials, celebrities, or pundits are saying.