The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Dan Balz's Take

Voices of Power

Questions for Elizabeth Warren

By Lois Romano
"Until we have a credible liquidation threat, we don't have capitalism in America."

So says Elizabeth Warren, one of the heroines of Michael Moore's new film "Capitalism: A Love Story" and the congressionally-appointed watchdog overseeing how the government manages the $700 billion bailout to the ailing financial sector. The popular Harvard law professor, a consumer advocate, has been quite candid in raising questions about whether the U.S. should even be in the business of propping up businesses "too big to fail" with taxpayer money

I'll be interviewing Warren Friday morning for the "Voices of Power" series, and want to hear what you'd like to ask her. Leave your questions in the comments below.

Posted at 10:49 AM ET on Oct 1, 2009  | Category:  Voices of Power
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Deputy National Security Adviser Is Returning to Duty With the Navy | Next: No White House Greeting for the Dalai Lama


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Talk to Adam Davidson from Planet Money. He has given the definitive interview with Elizabeth Warren.

You can hear the whole thing here:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/05/the_full_warren_interview.html

It is a great jumping off point for any serious discussion of TARP or regulation of the financial services industry.

Posted by: bradleyssmith | October 2, 2009 5:44 AM

How come credit card companies in the US don't have to obey the basic rules of contract law.

Why are credit card companies allowed to dictate unilateral modifications of terms.

I thought, "an agreement to agree" was not an enforceable contract, under US Law.

Please explain.

Posted by: tmit | October 1, 2009 4:50 PM

Dr Warren:

Given the total value of losses in Trading, compared to the earnings of trading, is there any Economic Justification to
Wall Street trading? Should firms that engage in any business other
then trading be allowed to trade, particularly complicated financial
products? Would the economy as a whole be better served by
breaking up these financial conglomerates and narowly limiting the zones of business of financial outfits? Such as limiting market makers to one or at most 3 stocks, to prohibiting brokerages from proprietary trading, from prohibiting equity firms from dealing in credit instruments and prohibiting futures traders from dealing in stocks or credit instruments?
Would the public interest be better served by narrow stovepipes in finance?

Posted by: patb | October 1, 2009 3:35 PM

Where does she think the foreclosure crisis is going?

Posted by: ddoering | October 1, 2009 3:27 PM

Too big to fail is simply too big. It's a no-brainer how to keep this from recurring- break up all of these outfits. This is happening to AIG, as I understand it. Why can't we simply force these outfits to be broken into smaller pieces, which CAN be allowed to fail? I understand there is a review of the anti-trust laws under way. My idea of what should happen is to break these guys up so we NEVER have to subsidize them again.

Posted by: sjjesq1 | October 1, 2009 1:36 PM

FINALLY!!! Something I can agree with Michael Moore on.

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2009 11:03 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.



 
 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company