This leads to the obvious conclusion that we need to take advantage of – well, the FIRE sector’s rich criminality, and regulate the living f*ck out of them now.

I expect them to slowly work their way out from under those regulations – after all, that was the main goal of the Reagan/deregulation/libertarian/Chicago School/Law & Economics/Friedmanian movement of the 70′s-2000′s. However, we could perhaps buy a few decades of good times. Just like with the New Deal reforms of banking, which worked fine, until the people who lived throught that period were replaced by fresh people who said ‘it’s different this time; those regulations were the product of a different age’.

Julian, where the f*ck do you get that idea? These guys are already well on the pushback road (politically), and as pointed out, are sucking more money into their own pockets. They took 10x the government money that the auto industry did, with ~1/10 the vituperation (Wall Street guys having their pay limited for still being employed is Evul; autoworkers being f*cked is Good).

If anything, the past six months show that these guys are incredibly hard to pin down, and have power even beyond what leftists were saying.

As for regulations inhibiting the growth of financial industries, that is a Good Thing. Haven’t you noticed that we went through a period of deregulation, in which which the creative genius of the financial guys was actually unleashed – to suck money into their pockets, and leave us holding the rubble?

IMHO this is another thing which falls under the category of 21st Century Libertarianism do now.

The Friedman/Greenspan School is now factually and intellectually dead; it didn’t survive reality (the zombie corpse, of course, will keep shambling due to inertia and the interests of rich men).

They’re paying themselves record bonuses?

The arguments sound similar on the surface. But the argument for the Patriot Act was that we should use the current shock to allow an emotional bias to overrule reason, whereas the argument for this reform is to use the current shock to counter a pre-existing emotional bias.

I guess I just don’t buy that as a difference. It’s not like we are ever in an emotionless, purely rational frame of mind. There will always be emotional biases for and against things — it’s not a matter of “emotional bias now” versus “no emotional bias then.” It’s a matter of “particular emotional bias now” versus “different emotional bias then.”

And if we’re generally interested in minimizing emotional biases, it’s incredibly difficult for me to believe that “right after a shocking, scary event” is the less emotional time.

Again, I’m not (and I don’t believe Ezra is) suggesting we bypass reason or debate. A rubber-stamp congress was a disaster in the beginning of the decade, and I don’t believe it’d be any different now. But, with the report (take it as the opening position) published, let’s begin the healthy process of discussion and debate now, and treat it as a priority, rather than waiting some months while the bankers ensure the leases on their representatives are up to date.

Right now, though, we’re not in “normal times”. That (largely justified) emotional bias has been matched by an emotional reaction against the chaos and destruction we’re seeing right now. The problem is that lessons learned quickest fade the soonest. What I believe Ezra is saying is that we should address the legislation before the lessons we’ve learned fade and the normal emotional bias reasserts itself.

This is basically the argument for the Patriot Act, right? That under normal circumstances, we’d be reluctant to give up a huge chunk of civil liberties, but these aren’t normal times, we’ve got an emotional reaction, and so we should hurry up and use that emotional reaction to bypass our better sense?