At 1:21 PM 9/8/95, Duncan Frissell wrote a very interesting disquisition: <snip>
An attempted cartel of that sort --- one that tries to enlist the billion or so people who will be easily and reliably switching funds within a few years --- is doomed to failure. Too many potential 'cheaters.' Too much money to be made by breaking with the cartel and offering financial services to others who wish to use them. <snip>
One question: Most of your remarks (and you're in no way alone in this regard) seem to assume that uniformity is a sine qua non of law enforcement (as opposed, say, to selective enforcement. Correct me if I'm wrong. I wonder, though, whether this is so; isn't it true that the impossibility of consistent enforcement may well encourage a systemically selective enforcement (maybe shaped by this or that, one's politics, for example)? Presumably, then, law enforcement would take on an increasingly "terroristic" character--"random," as IRS audits and the like can be. Some recent high-profile cases (Packwood, and Kenneth Starr's efforts to indict Gov. Tucker) might indicate the shape that enforcement could take, especially in light of some recent congressional legislative efforts: the gov't investigates you regarding X, in the process of the investigation turns up Y and Z, and thus finds reason maybe to look into A, B, and C as well--in effect, turning your life into a nightmare. But I digress: The main point, really, is that enforcement doesn't need to be nonselective to be "effective." I think this holds whether I understood your remarks correctly or not. Ted