The top 12 revolving-door moments of 2015

originally posted by: Boadicea
That may be true in a few industries, and in a few situations, but not overall... this is why we have colleges and universities and continuing education... everyone learns somewhere. Regulators can and do learn in exactly the same way. Perhaps if you gave me some examples, I could better address those.

Lets take banking since that's the one most in need of regulation. If you're not familiar with the day to day practices of the companies, how can you effectively regulate?

Let's start there. If an industry needs regulation today, it needs it tomorrow and the day after and the day after that... why would the positions be temporary? Health inspectors for restaurants aren't short-term positions... building inspectors aren't short-term positions. Why would any regulatory position need to be short-term?

The job isn't temporary but the person doing it is. This is because people have different beliefs as to how much regulation is a good thing. Greenspan and his ilk for example felt that no regulations and letting the market handle everything was best. These positions are typically appointed. Posistions with power in government like this are either appointed or elected and of the two options I don't think we want to add election politics to regulatory issues more than they already are.

Since the bankster fraudclosure settlement in 2011 only required the banksters to cease their practices for three years, and since Dodd-Frank did nothing to fix the root problems, I expect we will be seeing a replay soon... I wonder if we'll learn from our past mistakes and demand better next time? (Hint: I'm not holding my breath)

Dodd Frank is an absolute disaster.

a reply to: Aazadan

Okay, yes, people are free to change jobs... sorry... I'm a little slow sometimes! I see your point and the dilema there.

For banksters, let's start by repealing Dodd-Frank and Gramm-Leach-Blilely (I think that's right), and reinstate Glass-Steagall!