Uh, yeah. 'Cause if the big banks have demonstrated anything, it's that if just left to their own devices, they'll do everything the right way and the market will keep it all under control. Sure.
As a lawyer, I'm afraid that doesn't sound much like a utopia to me.

My favorite Far Side of all time. I have a co-worker we call "Ginger" for this very reason.

The methods they use are for a very good reason. This is like an Intro to Survey Methods class. :)

There is a lot invested in the Census so they'd rather annoy you than have some others try to excuse their lack of participation; or try to say that "certain groups of people" had more access to the Census than others. That's why they alert you of the Census mailing (so people will check their mail and not discard it for any reason); and send 2-3 bilingual follow-up postcards. It takes more time and money to narrow it down to those who didn't mail it back than it takes to just alert everyone who received it in the first place.

I mailed back my Census the same day. It took about 5-10 minutes to complete. There was nothing invasive about it (since when are race questions invasive?). I didn't like "Negro," but I made a note of it for the Census people and moved on. :) GOOOOOOO CENSUS!

I was watching a news story on the Census follow up letters and how it cost $64 million to send them out.

Are you surprised? ;)

Now how much time and money would it take to wait for everyone to send it back...whenever they sent it back, allow a grace period, figure out who didn't return it and THEN send follow-up postcards?

Small-time survey researchers sometimes wait to check addresses off of a list before following-up with a postcard. I wouldn't expect the Census massive survey researchers and employees to do that.

Not at all, but $64 mil just for one set of follow up letters...damn. I'm familiar with how the typical U.S. Government agency works and efficiency isn't exactly a high priority.

Efficiency (as far as outsiders can comprehend it) isn't exactly a high priority for most bureaucracies that have red tape, etc. :)

One thing is certain, people will always find something to critique.

Uhm, the free-market would have prevented it. The government distorted the market so that the banks were able to do what they did. You do understand that, right?

The government is the enabler, not the preventer.

How so? I'm interested in hearing your perspective on this.

No, I don't. Feel free to explain, but please also include an explanation of how banks would always do the right (as in economically right) thing and the economy would be better off if there was no regulation.

ETA: But before you start, you might as well know that your characterization of the health care bill as "fascism" in the other thread has put you at the disadvantage of starting your explanation with a pretty big credibility deficit. Standard libertarian arguments I have no problem with, although I rarely find them convincing. But the fascism stuff pretty much indicates a disconnect with political reality as far as I'm concerned.

Let's see.

First off, banks are allowed fractional reserve banking. Do you know what fractional reserve banking is? That's when banks are allowed to only keep a certain percentage of your money reserved. I believe it's around 10% (I know it was in the 60's, I doubt it's changed much). So, if everyone went to the bank right now, the bank would only be able to give back 10% of your money. Well, this amounts to a Ponzi scheme. This is the sort of stuff that Madoff was convicted for. Now, that doesn't mean that the free-market would necessarily have prevented it. But this is the sort of crap the government does not apply to banks even though it does to humans. That said, in a true free-market system with no fiat money (this is from the Austrian theory, Chicagoans can disagree), the banks would no longer be able to lend money which they do not have.

Now, much of the argument against all what the Fed has done (because an Austrian would argue that the Fed shouldn't exist) lies in the previous statements. But even then, we can do a few critiques of the system. The Federal Reserve creates the boom-bust cycle (and is bad for the poor and the old, specifically).

The Federal Reserve (an anti-free market entity, as it is the regulation of our monetary system) kept interest rates artificially low (especially in order to aid government lending and Bush's economy). Well, when you keep interest rates artificially low (against the market rate), it makes it real easy for one to lend haphazardly without any cares in order to gain more money (problems with the fractional reserve, among other things).

Furthermore, the creation of a Federal Reserve in of itself (along with a willing federal government) has compounded the problems of the banks giving out willingly. Since the banks all pay into the FDIC, they're under the impression that they will be saved if they make crazy choices, no matter what happens.

I can go on, but the beer and melatonin is kicking in.

Yes, I do know what it is, and it's really not quite the same as what Madoff was convicted off, nor is it essentially a Ponzi scheme.

But none of this is an argument against regulation necessarily, as you seem to concede in the bolded above -- banks are "allowed" and "that doesn't mean that the free-market would have prevented it." While I take it you're coming from an Austrian perspective (not exactly in the mainstream of economics), what you've said seems to suggest that it's the wrong kind of regulation that's at issue, not regulation period. "Austrians" would disagree, I know.

I can relate.