I never advocated ‘no regulation’ and neither do most conservatives that I know. What we don’t want is more progressive,keynesian,Krugman,big government solutions that have never worked, have made things worse and never will work in the future. We certainly don’t want another 2500 page bill, written in the dark of night, by the same progressives that have destroyed our economy and set us on the path to a fascist fiscal future. And we certainly don’t want it rammed down our throats with no real debate the way Obama and the dems did with the health care bill.
Celinas aruges(if I understand her right)that sensible borrowing limits will take care of the leverage problem in and of itself and that her other solutions, if implemented across the board, will tend to dampen down the need for excessive anti-trust regulations or the need to break up big banks. The banks will never become too big to fail in the first place nor pose a systemic risk to the entire economy if they do fail. They will downsize to fit the new market realities,capital requirements and lending restrictions. What Obama wants to do is beyond even FDR’s wildest progressive dreams.....LOL. Obama’s plan is true crony capitalism and fascism.
You are misreading Celinas. She is proposing really radical reforms and strong forceful government regulation. She’s just not admitting that it’s strong forceful government regulation.
I checked out her article from the Motley Fool,
she suggests the following:
1) should similarly force financial firms — from commercial banks to hedge funds — to hold a consistent percentage of hefty capital behind all securitized debt, rather than giving some firms a break on AAA-rated securities and some firms a pass completely.
She is proposing increasing regulation on Banks, hedge funds, etc, to an unprecedented level. (This is a repeal of the SEC’s 2004 deregulation).
2) A second necessary measure is consistent rules on trading and clearing. If AIG had had to put down $10 billion up front on a $100 billion derivatives liability, for example, and place the cash on reserve at a clearinghouse that had collected other counterparties’ monies for the same purpose, markets would have known that some money existed to absorb losses.
This is once again, another increase in government regulation. This is a repeal of the 2000 bill I mentioned earlier.
3) A third necessary rule is a capital charge for short-term borrowing
This is a major accounting change, which we really don’t know what the results would be.
But Celinas doesn’t account for Bank Mergers, partnerships and consolidation. So Wall Street could still wind up with a too big to fail bank. Also she keeps small depositors at risk, if you allow a Investment bank (Goldman) to buy Commercial Banks (where you keep your money), the Investment Bank can use your insured deposit as part of their collateral. She reduces the opportunity of a Too Big To Fail bank, but she doesn’t account for Wall Street Creativity. I want somebody to come in there and say “Oh heck no.”
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/gelinas.htm