This is an interesting point, and one I haven’t heard before. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention & Consumer Protection Act of 2005 made declaring bankruptcy more difficult. The timing of it is now suspect, in my view.
Obviously, the banking industry is glad to make bankruptcy more difficult at any time. But did the they make an extra push leading up to BAPCPA because of the shenanigans with repackaging bad loans? Were they just covering their asses knowing what was going to happen?
So what. Your characterization of these people tells me nothing. Especially when you characterize 2006 Committee on Capital Markets Regulation as anti-regulatory.
Well I went and looked it up and I understood the main thrust was to clean up conflicting regulations and unify SRO control to make regulation more effective given the deregulation of financial institutions by the feds before Bush took office.
If you say so
It was characterized as such in the column, but what is your problem with increasing self regulation which is what the SROs do? How does increasing self regulation by the SEC mean deregulation?
Whether or not I have a “problem” with increasing self-regulation is irrelevant. The point is that shifting from oversight of companies by a regulatory agency to voluntary self-regulation counts as deregulation.
Sorry, but I think you’re being willfully obtuse if you refuse to admit that O’Neill, Paulson, and Greenspan have been advocates of deregulation. In Greenspan’s case in particular, he’s notoriously the poster boy of financial-markets deregulation, and has been for several decades.
Where do you get off starting a thread asserting that the Bush administration bears no responsibility for the financial crisis, when you admit that you know “nothing” about the regulatory views of these prominent members of the Bush administration with significant oversight responsibility for financial markets?
If you somehow wound up with the notion that the overall thrust of the report was not in favor of loosening regulations, then I don’t think you quite understood it. Consider this typical article on the Report:
Why do you think I started this thread ? I had been presented with facts surrounding Bush’s plea for congressional help to get oversight and what I’m getting back is characterization on how the Bush people think, as if that had a bearing on the meltdown
I think more likely I found a different report by Paulson that I can’t retrieve at the moment.
The recommendations that Paulson made in the March 2006 report about shifting emphasis from official regulation to “increased self-regulation” referred to the SEC.
Of course it has a bearing on it. It puts in context Bush’s so-called “plea for congressional help to get oversight” on GSE’s.
GSE’s, as we’ve discussed, formed a comparatively small part of the financial meltdown. The views and policies of Bush administration members on other aspects of financial markets regulation also need to be considered, if you want to get an accurate picture of what happened and who’s to blame.