4 ms·
That's wrong. That kind of regulation comes from the legislature. It's an outside force. The effects of a regulator's actions on their ability to join banks aft
by neonbat 11y ago
That's wrong. That kind of regulation comes from the legislature. It's an outside force. The effects of a regulator's actions on their ability to join banks afterwards are measured independently of legislature regulation. What I'm talking about is the people whose job it is to enforce that regulation (the people we call "regulators"). Their incentive is to not enforce it as strongly as they could or should. They "adapt" their policy enforcement to fit what people believe in industry right now, which is why they let all these banks peddle bad loans and commit massive fraud. The reason they "adapt" is contained in my original post.
- rayiner 11y agoCongress only lays out the general contours of the regulatory scheme. It's the regulators that impose the specific requirements and define what they mean.
- neonbat 11y agoThat is the case with Dodd-Frank. That is not usually the case with regulation. Normally it goes "here are the rules, execute." Dodd-Frank is a nightmare exactly because they just have an outline full of blanks. It turns out regulators are not that good at 1. Enforcing regulation or 2. Writing regulation. The reason for this is because they have no incentive to.