Is regulation a dirty word?

Most of us immediately think negative when the word "regulation" is mentioned, particularly as it applies to the government.

We envision "red tape" or "paper work" or similar unpleasant images.

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you," is another less-than-exciting concept that has been a part of our political and economic lexicon over the years. Ronald Reagan might not have been the first person to use that phrase, but the words have been attributed to him in one form or another.

Another Reagan quote -- "The government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it."

A pretty clever use of words, don't you think? And certainly we can all relate to the capsule of truth there.

But then came Enron.

We don't understand the Enron debacle, and we're not even sure the company's CEO, Kenneth Lay, ever really comprehended exactly what the "brilliant" financial wizards under him were doing. But we do know it revolved around an orgy of "deregulation" in the energy industry.

And, above all, we know that many long-time hard-working employees of the company lost all they had when the stock plummeted in their retirement accounts, along with the savings of thousands of others who were told Enron was the proverbial greatest thing since sliced bread.

And we know that Enron Field in Houston is now called Minute Maid Park.

Among a certain class of Americans, deregulation has been a magic word, leading to unfettered business practices that did, indeed, bring untold wealth to a small minority of our populace. As far as we can determine, a significant number of this group has managed to retain that wealth while millions suffer in the economic decline -- as has been said, "they got out when the getting was good," many of them holding on to the so-called "Golden Parachute".

King Louis XIV summed up this attitude centuries ago: "After me, the disaster."

We didn't know it at the time, but Enron basically served as the introduction to a miasma of financial shenanigans in the years to come, ending in the bursting of the economic bubble sometime in late 2007.

How did it happen?

Well, among other things, it involves something called derivatives. We have on our "to-do list" learning exactly what derivatives are and how they work. But we must admit that, every time we start reading a summary of the term, a headache ensues and we go outside for a walk.

But some "insiders" understood them clearly enough to amass billions of dollars in wealth until it all came tumbling down -- while the so-called regulators either disappeared or watched from the sideline. Part of the problem, of course, is that in many instances the regulators are chosen from among those who need to be regulated -- in essence, no oversight at all.

"Capitalism is partly based on the thesis that the self-interest of entrepreneurs, managers, and workers combine to produce the most good for a nation. But when thinking shifts into the extreme 'greed is good' mode, the impact can be damaging," wrote David R. Frances in a column in the Christian Science Monitor.

Well, we all know that regulation is now making a comeback in Washington as the long march of crises in our housing, banking and investment systems continue to unfold.

The pendulum seems to swing historically on the government regulation issue. We saw the extreme "unfettered" concept during the last decade or so -- it is natural that it drifts back the other way in the next few years to come.

We hope a solid balance can be found and proper regulation and oversight can be applied to promote the most good for the most people while still enabling the entrepreneurial spirit to thrive in our open society.

"Regulation" may be a word that causes us to squirm a bit when first uttered, but history has shown it has its place.

--REK