April 4, 2008
National Journal: Don’t trash the Paulson blueprint
Struck by the near unanimity of the view that the Paulson blueprint is beside the point–something that Paul Krugman and the Wall Street Journal, for heaven’s sake, have been able to agree on–I attempt a limited defence in this column for National Journal (the link expires in a week). The document is not a waste of time, and I do not see it as a cynical political manoeuvre. Most of what the Treasury proposes actually makes sense, and it would be good to see the plan acted on. The problem is that the blueprint fails to ask the most pressing and important questions. As I noted two posts ago, it is more about form than content.
Mr. Crook, whatever other merits, if any, the Paulson “blueprint” may have, should we not be at least a little suspicious about its proposal to weaken the powers of the SEC?
Posted by: algasema | April 5th, 2008 at 5:49 pm | Report this commenti think the proposal is basically pretty good. Regulatory consolidation is imperative, first of all. And second, the blueprint does indeed call for (even if it does not provide) changes in the underlying regulations.
The SEC-CFTC merger, for example, is an area where the blueprint calls for harmonization of the underlying regulations in several key areas. How one can look at that and say it is simply “rearranging deck chairs” is a bit beyond me. And in some cases, such as with regard to insurance, the fact of bringing them under a single federal umbrella, as opposed to 50 different state regulatory schemes, logically requires harmonization and reform of the underlying rules.
It’s been fashionable to hound on Treasury and the Fed for their recent failures in regard to the subprime meltdown, but it seems to me that the blueprint is a basically sound plan that’s catching a lot of unnecessary flack because of unrelated problems.
Posted by: luq | April 9th, 2008 at 11:25 pm | Report this comment