"The lesson here is that if we want serious regulation of banks, we can't trust it to be done by bank regulators. We've seen the Fed and the OCC time and time again bend over backwards to let the banks out of statutory requirements. We've seen this with inaction (HOEPA regs), with aggressive preemption (and OCC is back to its old tricks...).

And this isn't just in the realm of consumer finance. This is also in the safety and soundness area. I'm not talking about stretched interpretations of section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. I'm talking about affiliate transaction rules and Prompt Corrective Action, cornerstones of the safety-and-soundness regime. Saule Omarova has a great paper that shows how the Fed granted affiliate transaction waivers like a drunken sailor during the financial crisis.  Those were rules that went back to 1932-33 as part of Glass-Steagal.  

And remember Prompt Corrective Action? That was a response to all of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board's screw ups during the S&L crisis (Who you say? There's a reason the FHLBB doesn't exist any more...). PCA is clear of a bunch of tripwires as you can get. The whole point was to make sure that the bank regulators regulated, not coddled. But Bernanke announced that he was suspending PCA for the banks during the financial crisis. Only after the stress tests cleared the big banks did PCA get applied to the small banks, and with a vengance. What a sorry state of the world we live in where the bank regulators are the last people we can trust to actually regulate the banks. "

After 15 years of fighting the sharing of culture in the name of an obsolete copyright regime, governments of the World are uniting to control and censor the Internet. The black-out of the Egyptian Net, the US government’s reaction to Wikileaks, the adoption of website blocking mechanisms in Europe, or the plans for “Internet kill switches”[1] are all major threats on our freedom of expression and communication. These threats come from corporations and politicians, unsettled by the advent of the Internet.

So despite most of the bill not applying to them, domain registers and registrars are now encouraged to simply take down sites on a voluntary basis, if they believe they're dedicated to infringement. And if they do so, they are immune from liability for damages caused. In other words, pretty much any domain can be disappeared by its register or registrar with little real recourse, and, in fact, there is encouragement for this to happen.

"While some of the anti-fraud remedies of the securities laws still apply in 144A transactions, these have been watered down in recent years by Congressional action and judicial interpretation. In a series of opinions authored first by Justice Powell and then by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court has steadily scaled back the scope of the securities laws. Opinions by Justice Kennedy, in particular, limited the impact of anti-fraud protections as well as the ability of investors to sue gatekeepers who play a significant role in preparing offerings."

"A “trading facility,” as defined under the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act, prohibits phone transactions, which is how swaps have been traded for three decades…Lincoln’s bill does create a framework for swaps to be traded competitively based on price, service and technology options, said Christopher Giancarlo, chairman of the Wholesale Markets Brokers’ Association Americas."

"Here's why I don't think of "too big" as a myth for resolving a firm. In my mind, the farther you are from the origin in that graph, the harder it is for the government to detect problems and properly deter large firms under resolution authority. (This is why I draw our "safe" resolution as a circle, instead of a square.) Holding for a liquidity risk, the larger the firm, the more vicious the effects of having a shadow banking run on the rest of the financial sector and on the real economy. It is possible that the green circle here will be cast out far, and that size and pressures of campaign donations won't play a major part. But why take the chance?"

"You didn't have the time to read the 1100 page stimulus bill. And neither did members of Congress—by their own choice. Most lawmakers—on both sides of the aisle—were only given 13 hours to read the bill before it was passed."

(My title)