I got hundreds of questions and comments this month from you about my stance on regulations. Let's see why.
Q: I agree with you on the need for financial regulation. However, they must be simple and clear… How would you write the regs? ~ Cory B.
A: Cory, all the regs I would write would be one-liners. That's no joke.
Q: What we need is a hammer. Not the kind carpenters use, but a judicial hammer which treats serious crime seriously. No more civil trials for criminal offenses, such as the debacle surrounding Richard Fuld. These thugs know how to weigh odds, and most of them will gladly risk 15 months in a white-collar prison at hard tennis for, say, a few million in ill-gotten gains. You can't fix fraud, but you should be able to make the punishment so severe that only the dumbest of the dumb would give it a try. ~ Ron S.
A: That's what I've been saying. How come so many of you say it so much better than me? I'm always learning from you all.
Q: To put faith in regulation and the regulators is to assume they can't be bought. They can always be bought. Whaddya gonna do? Reform the existing corrupted agencies? Get rid of the Gensler/Goldman-run CFTC and replace it with something else? And who would run that? Somebody from JPMorgan? ~ fallingman
A: I want teachers (grade school and junior and senior high school teachers) to be our regulators. They obviously aren't about the money and they obviously are civic and civil minded. Why not?
Q: Who is going to put the "black and white" rules in place, the regulators? lol! Regulators are currently paid by the banks they regulate, umm, but, isn't that a conflict of interest, or, am I just stupid?~ Domina L.
A: Stupid is as stupid does. If we go back to the way regulators regulate, we're all stupid. We need a new breed of regulators. Expecting that we'll ever get them to come down from Olympus is proof that I am stupid. But a boy can dream, can't he?