Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

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.

By Web Politics Editor  |  October 1, 2009; 10:49 AM ET
Categories:  Voices of Power  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Deputy National Security Adviser Is Returning to Duty With the Navy
Next: No White House Greeting for the Dalai Lama

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 | Report abuse

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 | Report abuse

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 | Report abuse

Where does she think the foreclosure crisis is going?

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

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 | Report abuse

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

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

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company