Is this good public policy, or is this the government favoring lending to the public sector by effectively deeming loans to the public sector as being less risky than they, in fact, are?  

President Dudley asserts that when the Board extended credit in the financial crisis, "it intervened to prevent the failure of several systemically important institutions, including firms it did not supervise – namely Bear Stearns and AIG." The gist of Mr. Dudley's remarks seems to be: if the Board made any mistakes leading to the crisis, it was not realizing that others would screw up. Wouldn't it have been fairer to say that if the Board had not existed as a lender…

Senator Warren rightly addresses contradictions in the assertions of critics who oppose regulations she favors. Demonstrating inconsistencies in the statements of an opponent is a fair method of debate and is a powerful way to make a point.

That style crosses the line, however, when the Senator uses tactics that can intimidate and effectively silence those with whom she disagrees. Senator Warren asked the SEC to provide her staff "with a briefing on how the SEC interprets…

A regulatory mindset that regards the failure in an innovation as an indicator of a legal violation ultimately will discourage the very innovations that Comptroller Curry praises, since restrictions and punishment tend not to engender creativity. It is inevitable that bank regulators are cautious. Even so, a regulator's inclination to say "no" to innovation by punishing failed innovation is likely to give the less regulated a strong competitive advantage.