Bloomberg News's Margaret Carlson criticizes President Obama's review of regulations: "Now Obama is adopting the mindset of Republicans who believe that if business is regulated at all, it is regulated too much." She adds, "Businesses hardly have much to gripe about. Corporate America's been the first to rebound from the crisis its finance unit caused." Good thing the Bloomberg opinion columnist is there to prevent President Obama from being too pro-business! And what an oversimplification and distortion of the causes of the financial crisis.

With state and local fiscal problems getting lots of press attention and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger leaving office in California, FutureOfCapitalism checked in with Joe Mathews for an update from the Golden State. Mr. Mathews is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of two books: (with Mark Paul) California Crackup: How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It and The People's Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy. We worked together on the Harvard Crimson.

I begin by asking Mr. Mathews what happened. It seems like not that long ago that people were talking seriously about amending the Constitution so that Mr. Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, could run for president. Now he's leaving office with a $25 billion budget deficit.

Toward the end of a Wall Street Journal article that appears under the headline "Brookfield Asset Boosts General Growth Stake to 38%" comes the following:

Even so, some analysts noted investors' concern that, at a 38% stake, Brookfield now effectively controls General Growth, putting smaller shareholders at a disadvantage. A Brookfield spokesman said Brookfield wants the same as other shareholders.

"We value our partners in GGP," Brookfield's Andrew Willis said. "We have a governance structure in place that we think should give everybody comfort. We're all aligned as long-term investors in GGP."

The Wall Street Journal has an article about Goldman Sachs' U.S.-based clients annoyed that the firm will only allow foreign investors, not Americans, to invest alongside it in Facebook. Is it too far-fetched to imagine some lawyer trying to conjure a case on behalf of such a client accusing Goldman of discrimination on the basis of national origin? It might not get too far in court, but sure would get a lot of attention and would make the public point.

Separately, Holman Jenkins has a pretty good column about the role of the SEC in all this: "The agency is worried that some might begin to ask what good the SEC does and why we need it—questions without any flattering answer."

The Federal Communications Commission's press release approving the Comcast's acquisition/merger of NBC Universal is worth a look for the conditions it imposes:

As part of the merger, Comcast-NBCU will be required to take affirmative steps to foster competition in the video marketplace. In addition, Comcast-NBCU will increase local news coverage to viewers; expand children's programming; enhance the diversity of programming available to Spanish-speaking viewers; offer broadband services to low-income Americans at reduced monthly prices; and provide high-speed broadband to schools, libraries and underserved communities, among other public benefits

The New York Times has an editorial fretting about the possibility that former solictors general now representing "big business" before the Supreme Court will receive some kind of unfair favorable treatment from the justices. There's no evidence in the editorial that any of them, or their clients, have received such favorable treatment. There's no concern expressed in the editorial that the solicitors general were getting unfair favorable treatment when they were representing the government. And when one of these same former solicitors general was representing not business but proponents of same-sex marriage in California, the Times seemed to have no problem at all with it.

For evidence that the monetary policy debate has reached the political mainstream, this blog post by William Kristol of the Weekly Standard is pretty good:

it's worth further asking--as more and more people are beginning to ask--whether a modernized international gold standard, which anchors currencies to a standard outside government manipulation, wouldn't better serve the interests of free and limited government both at home and abroad. After all, it's the dollar's status as a reserve currency that has allowed the U.S. government to amass huge debts, debts which the legislatively imposed debt ceiling has been unsuccessful in limiting. Fiat currency seems to be related to bloated and unlimited government, and to speculative bubbles, and to international instability. Do we just to have to live with this, or simply hope for better Fed chairmen?

This isn't Ron Paul or even Seth Lipsky or Jim Grant, it's Bill Kristol.

Ted Frank of the Manhattan Institute's Point of Law blog has thoughts on President Obama's Wall Street Journal op-ed piece in which the president announces "a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive" and declares, "we are also making it our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb."

Mr. Frank writes, "One can cynically suggest that Obama is triangulating, moving to the center (or worse, trying to create the appearance of moving to the center without actually moving) to try to regain the business community's support lost in the first two years of his administration."

Mike Allen's Politico Playbook reports, without further comment: "At 6 a.m., HHS posted a report finding that anywhere from 50 to 129 million (19 to 50 percent of) Americans under age 65 have some type of preexisting condition and would be at risk if the Affordable Care Act were repealed."

The full HHS report is here.

The 129 million number is absurdly inflated. There weren't anywhere near 129 million people without health insurance before ObamaCare passed. The claim that since the law passed tens of millions of people have suddenly developed conditions that make them uninsurable suggests that, if anything, the law has been bad for the health of Americans.

From a New York Times sports column: "In the second decade of the 21st century, there are nights — not every night — when the N.B.A. feels a little too much like a pickup game, right down to the part where superstars choose up sides, another troublesome trend."

What's "troublesome" about an athlete deciding for himself where to play? The players own their labor, after all. What's the Times' suggested alternative, that what team a player plays for be left entirely up to the owners?

There's been a quiet conservative revolution over at the New York Times editorial page. First came an editorial over the weekend suggesting that Congress cut $30 billion a year in farm subsidies. Then, today, the paper has an editorial praising the prison policies of Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, a Republican. Next thing you know Paul Krugman will be accusing his own paper of contributing to the climate of hate that led to the Tucson shooting....

Goldman Sachs will offer the chance to invest in Facebook only to its clients outside the United States, the New York Times reports.

Advocates of a strong Securities and Exchange Commission, or those who believe that at $50 billion Facebook is overvalued, will perhaps see this as a success. American investors are protected from investing in Facebook, while foreigners who lack SEC protection are left undefended against Goldman Sachs and Facebook.

Critics of a strong SEC, or those who believe that at $50 billion Facebook is a bargain, will perhaps see this as a disaster. American investors are prevented from investing in Facebook, while foreigners are allowed to. And Facebook is deprived of American capital that it would have otherwise been able to raise.

Government intervention into the market economy has gotten so bad that even Woody Allen is making fun of it. From a New Yorker piece out today that riffs on the Monopoly board game:

"No one knows where the market is going," Schnabel said. "If I were you, I'd wait six months. Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner are meeting in Washington tomorrow and one of the topics they're discussing is the yellows. We'll know more after."

More:

the new Administration set aside two billion dollars of the stimulus package for people with money in their mattresses, and the Fed allotted it by size. Vorpich had a queen-size bed and received substantial help

While Treasury Secretary Geithner is touting tax credits as a solution to the supposed problem of "food deserts," the free market is meeting the need on its own, the New York Times reports:

retailers better known for selling clothes or aspirin, including Walgreens, CVS/Pharmacy and Target, are expanding in a big way into the grocery business, with fresh produce, frozen meats and, yes, even sushi

President Obama is easing American sanctions on Cuba, Politico reports. The article says that the decision was "in the works for months, but political concerns — such as November's midterm elections — held up the announcement." The article then goes on to claim that "Despite the sharp criticism from hard-liners like Rubio and Menendez, the politics of Obama's move are on his side."

If the politics of this move are as great for Mr. Obama as Politico claims, then why did the president wait to announce it until after the election, and then on a Friday night of a three-day weekend? A New York Sun editorial says that Mr. Obama, while claiming that the changes will help bring democracy to Cuba, has avoided the democratic process here that involves winning approval for the changes from Congress.