I'll avoid going too in depth and go to my basic point:
I don't really even look at it as too much or too little regulation. Regulation either is or is not effective and it's evident to me that elegant regulations that are effective are vastly preferably to oppressive regulations even if they are also effective.
It's also clear that this particular set of regulations were ineffective...whether they were well enumerated or incomplete really only serves to reduce the issue to an ideological debate. The simple fact is that the regulations failed to maintain the stability of the lending markets and either introduced or left unchecked destabilizing activities.
It's certainly a fair point that an elegant solution is more work but I don't see why we should pay our public servants for shoddy work simply because doing it right is tough. They already let their staffers shoulder the majority of the real work anyways so I'm not exactly sympathetic to the "but that would be hard!" argument.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
