Bailout Smackdown- How Much Regulation Is too Much for the Financial-Services Industry?

[babylonsister]

Bailout Smackdown
How Much Regulation Is too Much for the Financial-Services Industry?
By Mike Lillis 10/22/08 6:06 AM


Barney Frank, chairman of the House Finance Committee. (WDCpix)

They came together quickly in February to pass a short-term stimulus bill. They united again this month around a plan to bail out Wall Street. But as Democrats and Republicans begin deliberations over long-term reforms for the financial-services industry, both sides seem to be prepping for what will likely be a heated partisan debate.

In a House Financial Services Committee hearing Tuesday, lawmakers seemed to agree that the federal rules governing banks should be altered after the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression. But they are far from reaching a consensus on what form those changes should take. Members instead sparred over the causes of the global financial crisis, the government’s role in free markets and what is the essence of American-style capitalism.

If these are the deliberations that will prevent the next economic collapse, the country might be in trouble.

At the heart of the debate is a thorny question: Do markets work best when left unhindered, or when regulations add protections to the financial system? While many Republicans bucked their conservative instincts to approve an enormous government intervention in the U.S. financial system in response to Wall Street’s meltdown, there is evidence they won’t be so supportive when the time comes to reform the finance industry more permanently.

For the most part, the disagreements at Tuesday’s hearing followed the traditional arc of partisan ideology. From many Democrats came this message: The nation’s big banks and investment firms, left to their own devices, had gone on a greed-fueled spree with other people’s money. They demanded stricter regulations in the future.

more...

http://washingtonindependent.com/14113/fight-over-new-regulations

[ccinamon]

1. I've been telling by republican family

that regulations are there to keep the GREED of the rich and powerful in check....and I use the same phrase when writing to my congress critters....of course, if you have representatives like Kay Bailey and John Cornyn, they just bullshit and ignore you...

But, I keep trying!

If we can get more people on the "regulations keep the greed of the rich and powerful in check", we might be able to make a difference...in addition, I've started adding 25years of deregulation and trickle-down got us here, it's time to try something new....my sister-in-law is a little bit more open to other points of view -- rest of the family, not so much....

[bemildred]

2. Well, first off, "Financial Services" is not an industry. nt

[babylonsister]

3. Could have fooled me if profits have anything to do with it. nt

[bemildred]

4. "Industries" make things.

They call them "financial services" because they are part of the service sector. I suppose you could say they "make money".

It is true that "industry" can be construed in a broader way, but when you have first narrowed it down to "financial services", it makes no sense to then construe the broad meaning of "industry".

Or anyway, that's my case. But the usage is common, I suppose nobody wants to be part of a mere "business" anymore, and perhaps I am being too pedantic.
:-)

[babylonsister]

5. Well, according to a dictionary interpretation,

and yes, I'm being pedantic also. :P

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/industry?o=0

any general business activity; commercial enterprise: the Italian tourist industry.