Friday, September 19, 2008

The Future of Financial Regulation

Wisdom from David Brooks and Gerard Baker.
(via Greg Mankiw)

1 comment:

thinking said...

The key is a balance. Like with almost everything in life, one can have too much or too little. So it is with regulation.

And yes, that means we must eternally struggle with the question, and that there are no easy solutions. It also means that sometimes what works in one time does not work in another.

What's ironic is that a lack of prudent regulatory oversight and allowing markets to run wild has led to unimagined levels of govt intervention.

Think about this: we have effectively nationalized for the time being the world's largest insurance company, along with the 2 companies that hold or guarantee about half the mortgages in this company. Who would have thought? What other shoes are going to drop?

What's also ironic is that many of those who for years fought off every regulatory reform are now the ones running to the federal govt asking for huge handouts.

If they get our money, they must accept some oversight.

If we under regulate, then we get this: a time when we need huge govt intervention.

The balance must be restored.

I should also add that part of the problem is that the Republicans today do not believe in any domestic govt, so they don't manage it well.

Can someone run a company well when they do not even believe in its mission or product? Imagine someone running Apple who didn't believe in technology or the computer. They probably wouldn't do so well.

That's how you get incompetent "Brownie" in charge of FEMA during Katrina. If one believes that govt has no useful function, then may as well put any crony in charge; it doesn't matter under that theory.

The incompetency of the current generation of Republicans in running govt is now a legacy they must own.