I've been a bit curious as to why financial reformers are so intent on securing "state preemption": In most cases, a federal standard is more protective than 50 different state standards. Luckily, Mike Konczal writes up his thoughts on the matter today and they're mostly convincing. I'm not as certain as he is that corruption is more of a problem for federal regulators than state regulators, but if the system is constructed so that you're forced to choose the stronger of the two regulatory schemes, that's fine.
May 12, 2010; 4:15 PM ET
Save & Share: Previous: Galbraith: The danger posed by the deficit ‘is zero’
Posted by: WEW72 | May 12, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: WEW72 | May 12, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: rmgregory | May 12, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: WEW72 | May 12, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: idw3 | May 13, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.