What's called "financial reform" has twin motivations: to stabilize financial markets and to punish "Wall Street" for the crisis. So much in the legislation (a consumer protection agency, restrictions on "proprietary" trading by banks) is left to regulators that no one can now know the full outcome. It could be greater stability, overregulation or a scattering of risky activities into lightly regulated institutions. History will judge whether this qualifies as genuine "reform" -- or just revenge.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Revenge? Reform? Both?
This is the gist of Robert Samuelson's op-ed in the Washington Post. the last paragraph says it all: