Given that the major health care debate, which has been taking up a lot of oxygen in the room, is over, everyone is now turning their attention to financial reform. So I’ve decided to write a little 10-page brief that does its best to catch everyone up to what has been going on with the financial reform debate. In particular, it tries to argue how we can judge a successful reform effort from a weak one along the ideas of consumer financial protection, derivatives reform, resolution authority, and a 21st Century Glass-Steagall. Some people have asked for something like “Rortybomb 101: Financial Reform”, and this is what you get.
Here’s the web page and the pdf.
There’s also 4 graphics at the end for those of you who prefer to not read it, but want to be quickly updated. Here’s the one for resolution authority (click through for full-sized image):
Also, in a sneaky way, the front page, which is also here has a list of suggestions and talking points for those of you who want a quick summary or who would print it, look a the cover, and never read it. Particularly, there are a list of suggestions, some low-hanging fruit and some a bit of a reach, that would make the Senate Bill significantly better.
I plan on updating this as the Senate effort to pass financial reform continues. If you enjoy all the analysis of financial reform at this blog feel free to read this and pass it along to those who want to know what is happening in financial reform. And feedback, particularly from distinguishing consumers of this sort of thing, would be much appreciated.
Hi Mike,
Usually just a lurker here but wanted to post to say thank you for helping to make this important issue clearer to interested but non-financial professionals like myself. You’re doing great work and it’s a shame that thoughtful and knowledgeable people like you and Elizabeth Warren are drowned out in the media by Beck and the dolts on CNBC.
best,
John Moore
What a fantastic idea, this 10 page brief! Thank you for doing this!
I am severely economics/finance-challenged, but have been following your blog (and baselinescenario’s) since the 08 Fin Crisis, trying to understand WTF happened to my world.
You and James Kwak and Simon Johnson … and all the other econ/fin experts that you guys point to … have been, and continue to be, a life-line for me.
Thank you, again, for taking the time and making the effort to explain, in ‘regular people’s language’, this crisis and what we can (hopefully) do to ensure it is not repeated.
Hi Mike,
I’ve loved your coverage of the progress of the financial reform legislation. A lot of tech people are pretty concerned about some changes to who can invest in startups — see http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/03/startups-get-hit-by-shrapnel-in-the-banking-bill.html for example. Do you think the language about accredited investors will stay in? What kind of wording or legislation could properly distinguish legit technology startups from investing in a hedge fund, etc.? Thanks again for your thoroughness with all this stuff.