4 ms·

The point of legislation like this isn't to support good actors who were going to make good choices regardless, it's to limit what bad actors will do when left

The point of legislation like this isn't to support good actors who were going to make good choices regardless, it's to limit what bad actors will do when left to their own devices. If everyone did the right thing on their own then we wouldn't need laws to prevent wage theft, or false advertising, or people dumping toxic chemicals in rivers people might drink out of, or murder.

chrismcb 4y ago
I think the point is... you works think that the person who helped write the dodd Frank act, would probably follow it, even if it wasn't in law.
- creato 4y ago
  That sounds nice but it’s childish, like suggesting people voluntarily pay more taxes than owed. Don’t hate the player, hate the game. It’s perfectly reasonable to follow the rules of the game while believing the rules can and should be be improved. Or in Barney Frank’s case, actually doing so.
  - chrisco255 4y ago
    How would the original Dodd-Frank legislation have stopped Frank's own bank from failing? Or is it the case that there are always inherent risks in banking and that no legislation is sufficient to prevent all failures? Perhaps even, sometimes legislation has unintended side effects that lead to adaptive behavior in the market which then causes a shift in risk patterns that then ultimately causes a different, altogether unforeseen disaster?
- fwlr 4y ago
  He says in the article that he quickly realized the 50 billion threshold was too low and began advocating to raise it. Why would you expect him to follow the part of his legislation that he thinks is a mistake, after he succeeded at fixing that mistake?
Jtsummers 4y ago
It's also to (at least theoretically, can't comment on Dodd-Frank specifically but other areas of compliance that I've dealt with) ensure that even good actors don't stray too far. "Normalization of deviance" is a real issue, even for well-intended individuals and organizations. Having some manner to hold people to account can reduce (though certainly not eliminate) those incidences as well, or provide a way to get back on track (including, potentially, paths for self-reporting and rectifying to discourage coverups).

chrismcb 4y ago

I think the point is... you works think that the person who helped write the dodd Frank act, would probably follow it, even if it wasn't in law.

creato 4y ago
That sounds nice but it’s childish, like suggesting people voluntarily pay more taxes than owed. Don’t hate the player, hate the game. It’s perfectly reasonable to follow the rules of the game while believing the rules can and should be be improved. Or in Barney Frank’s case, actually doing so.
- chrisco255 4y ago
  How would the original Dodd-Frank legislation have stopped Frank's own bank from failing? Or is it the case that there are always inherent risks in banking and that no legislation is sufficient to prevent all failures? Perhaps even, sometimes legislation has unintended side effects that lead to adaptive behavior in the market which then causes a shift in risk patterns that then ultimately causes a different, altogether unforeseen disaster?
fwlr 4y ago
He says in the article that he quickly realized the 50 billion threshold was too low and began advocating to raise it. Why would you expect him to follow the part of his legislation that he thinks is a mistake, after he succeeded at fixing that mistake?

Jtsummers 4y ago

It's also to (at least theoretically, can't comment on Dodd-Frank specifically but other areas of compliance that I've dealt with) ensure that even good actors don't stray too far. "Normalization of deviance" is a real issue, even for well-intended individuals and organizations. Having some manner to hold people to account can reduce (though certainly not eliminate) those incidences as well, or provide a way to get back on track (including, potentially, paths for self-reporting and rectifying to discourage coverups).