Administration unveils financial system overhaul

[Stuxnet]

Text

This actually seems productive and promising. This is regulation we need, and it doesn't seem - at least not at first glance - that Geithner is seeking broad, sweeping power and control. The truth will lie in the actual implementation, but these look like great steps toward controlling and mitigating the consquences of the piranha-like bottomfeeding that goes on in the financial sector.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

I actually watched Geithner give this testimony on CSPAN. He was VERY level headed, very clear and he sounded like he had strong goals.

It seems to me, however, that he does not yet have a PLAN. He has goals, but not a specific plan. Right now, I think that is actually OK, but he needs to get a plan together soon.

He said he was probably NOT going to outlaw CDS, but he was going to force them into the open on a public trade system. He also said he was going to require much stricter capital requirements for financial institutions of all kinds, so they cannot have 30 to 1 leverage and huge huge debt.

 

[StageLeft]

I actually watched Geithner give this testimony on CSPAN. He was VERY level headed, very clear and he sounded like he had strong goals.

He normally does, he's a powerful speaker (at least most of the time).

 

[Thump553]

In my view this is THE most important part of the recovery efforts, and will probably be the hardest to implement.

Not only will you have nearly every Republican member of Congress automatically saying no because it was proposed by the President, but it is also quite likely that special interests/donors will be leaning hard and heavy on Democratic members, claiming the regs are intrusive, anti-competitive, etc.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Thump553
In my view this is THE most important part of the recovery efforts, and will probably be the hardest to implement.

I agree. Not only is it THE most important part of the recovery effort, I'd go so far as to say it's really the only NECESSARY part of the recovery effort. But then again, I don't support the bailouts, so that leads us to a different issue and a different thread.

Originally posted by: Thump553
Not only will you have nearly every Republican member of Congress automatically saying no because it was proposed by the President, but it is also quite likely that special interests/donors will be leaning hard and heavy on Democratic members, claiming the regs are intrusive, anti-competitive, etc.

I certainly hope that's not the case. I think it will be difficult to implement because it will be difficult, cumbersome, and tedious to get the details right; hopefully not because of partisan antics from Republicans and Democrats. Of course, the catch is that ironing out the details breeds contentious arguments from political manufacturers.

This is not only critical because it implements safeguards that should have already been in place, but I think it's the single most important step in restoring confidence.

 

[Dari]

I really believe that there needs to be a shift away from the letter of the law towards the spirit of the law. This way, the courts and regulators would have a much easier time dealing with new issues. For example, CDSs, which are essentially insurance products, could've just as easily have been regulated by laws on the books rather than the need to seek new powers.

Oh, and we need to consolidate power into the federal system. Having each state regulate a national or global bank is stupid.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Dari
I really believe that there needs to be a shift away from the letter of the law towards the spirit of the law.

I normally don't subscribe to slipper slope arguments, but for every problem this "solved", it would create infinite others. It would make accountability even more of a moving target than it already is, and would allow the government to run more unchecked than it already is.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Dari
I really believe that there needs to be a shift away from the letter of the law towards the spirit of the law.

Welcome to one of the eternal debates within the legal community. Personally, I've always disliked the "spirit of the law" side because judges and regulators can too easily twist it one way or the other, depending on the political winds of the time. If the letter of the law fails to clearly and accurately reflect the spirit of the law, recraft the law! At least that's more democratic than simply allowing to a court to fill in the blanks as a few unelected judges see fit.

 

[bamacre]

What we really need is more transparency and oversight of the Federal Reserve.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: bamacre
What we really need is more global commitment to transparency and oversight of institutional financial matters.

Fixed.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: bamacre
What we really need is more global commitment to transparency and oversight of institutional financial matters.

Fixed.

LOL, well hell, let's dump the Fed, go back to having honest, hard money, 100% reserve banking, and we'll have the best regulation possible. It certainly would have prevented this latest financial mess.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Dari
I really believe that there needs to be a shift away from the letter of the law towards the spirit of the law.

Welcome to one of the eternal debates within the legal community. Personally, I've always disliked the "spirit of the law" side because judges and regulators can too easily twist it one way or the other, depending on the political winds of the time. If the letter of the law fails to clearly and accurately reflect the spirit of the law, recraft the law! At least that's more democratic than simply allowing to a court to fill in the blanks as a few unelected judges see fit.

Can you provide a link on this ongoing debate? I'm really interested. IMHO, when you focus on the letter of the law, it can be for a particular state of time and a particular event. The spirit of the law can adjust to different scenerios. Of course, as you say, it relies heavily on the competence and objective of the jury to carry out the correct intrepretation. But this is where our selection of juries would come in. They should be impartial and have good moral judgement. Otherwise, we can just have computers give out verdicts.

 

[piasabird]

First we need to quit calling a hedge fund company an investment bank.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Dari
I really believe that there needs to be a shift away from the letter of the law towards the spirit of the law.

Welcome to one of the eternal debates within the legal community. Personally, I've always disliked the "spirit of the law" side because judges and regulators can too easily twist it one way or the other, depending on the political winds of the time. If the letter of the law fails to clearly and accurately reflect the spirit of the law, recraft the law! At least that's more democratic than simply allowing to a court to fill in the blanks as a few unelected judges see fit.

Can you provide a link on this ongoing debate? I'm really interested. IMHO, when you focus on the letter of the law, it can be for a particular state of time and a particular event. The spirit of the law can adjust to different scenerios. Of course, as you say, it relies heavily on the competence and objective of the jury to carry out the correct intrepretation. But this is where our selection of juries would come in. They should be impartial and have good moral judgement. Otherwise, we can just have computers give out verdicts.

Um, there are no juries in appeals courts (at least federal). Issues of statutory interpretation almost never get decided by juries; they get decided by judges. When regulatory agencies sue or get sued by private parties over interpretation/application of federal laws and regs, juries are rarely involved, because the questions are legal ("what does the law mean?") and not factual. Regulatory actions are usually civil, not criminal, where juries are more common, and the issues are usually factual.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Dari
I really believe that there needs to be a shift away from the letter of the law towards the spirit of the law.

Welcome to one of the eternal debates within the legal community. Personally, I've always disliked the "spirit of the law" side because judges and regulators can too easily twist it one way or the other, depending on the political winds of the time. If the letter of the law fails to clearly and accurately reflect the spirit of the law, recraft the law! At least that's more democratic than simply allowing to a court to fill in the blanks as a few unelected judges see fit.

Can you provide a link on this ongoing debate? I'm really interested. IMHO, when you focus on the letter of the law, it can be for a particular state of time and a particular event. The spirit of the law can adjust to different scenerios. Of course, as you say, it relies heavily on the competence and objective of the jury to carry out the correct intrepretation. But this is where our selection of juries would come in. They should be impartial and have good moral judgement. Otherwise, we can just have computers give out verdicts.

Um, there are no juries in appeals courts (at least federal). Issues of statutory interpretation almost never get decided by juries; they get decided by judges. When regulatory agencies sue or get sued by private parties over interpretation/application of federal laws and regs, juries are rarely involved, because the questions are legal ("what does the law mean?") and not factual. Regulatory actions are usually civil, not criminal, where juries are more common, and the issues are usually factual.

By jury I meant judge. A judge is a jurist, right?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Dari
By jury I meant judge. A judge is a jurist, right?

A judge is (hopefully) a jurist (basically, a legal expert), but that's different than a jury. The plural form of jurist is jurists, not jury.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Dari
By jury I meant judge. A judge is a jurist, right?

A judge is (hopefully) a jurist (basically, a legal expert), but that's different than a jury. The plural form of jurist is jurists, not jury.

Correct. The singular form for member of a jury is juryist. A juryist works with the jurist to write laws, while the legislators are in charge of executing that law. Laws are made from lawsuits, in which juryists decide if a new law is needed because of the issues raised in a particular case. Once written, the new law is voted on by the House of Lords before finally being approved by the Queen.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...s-an-aig-board-member/