This is becoming quite a long conversation but you are right that I have more confidence in judges (= good people, concept requiring clarification!) than in formal rules. Most lawyers are too. Of course, the ideal combination is good rules (predictability) and good men (making sure inevitable defects in the rules get fixed fairly). If these “judges”/regulators are embedded in a good governance structure (transparency, professional qualifications, sufficiently long tenure but also oversight by an elected bosy) I am confident that it would be far easier to write rules that help to achieve desired outcomes.

As to 2fish, I often agree with his pragmatic and professional views, especially as to the futility of even trying to fix the system in a “grand” way, like you want to do. Whenever I write about my regulatory wish list (which tends to change occasionally, despite the fact that I have relevant qualifications and am reasonably familiar with the status of the subject (as does 2fish, apparently) I am always aware that the nature of regulation, especially in a democracy, is that it tends to produce many unintended consequences and is likely to be captured by interest groups. I think 2 fish is more pro-industry and for me it does not matter if the finance industry survives in tis present shape (much of it is parasitic, from an efficiency perspective, I believe), while 2fish may have more of a vested interest, no offense intended of course.

Is that a fair statement? How would you characterize our differences? How would you summarize Twofish’s position?

(He says he is for regulating everything financial – in one place – but he is also skeptical of the efficacy of regulation – because he is looking at past regulation rather than trying to visual a better system)

Perhaps the electronic exchange system provides a means, along with laws. The U.S. must allow money to flow out of the U.S. But, can we establish laws which mandate recording each transaction? How about laws which limit the receipent of said transactions to firms or individuals who register their firm with the SEC (or some other agency) and who agree to provide information on the dollars received from regulated U.S. banks and insurance firms. Dollars received from private corporations not in the regulated system would escape this requirement, thus firm to firm payments for imports would not be affected.

Information about what is going on as it affects the regulated banking and insurance industry in the U.S. is essential. Hedge funds, no matter where located in the world, would be asked to report funds received transactions from U.S. banks and insurance firms in the regulated system. They can keep money spent secret (which they claim is their primary objective).

Mr. Huizer: In your post above, you also lay down some markers. But you seem, like me, reluctant to become too specific for fear of your reach exceeding your understanding. That is certainly my situation.

“I will join the ranks of those who do not know the best way to keep both banking systems alive and well in the U.S. One set of laws should be developed in the U.S. which focuses on preservation of the regulated banking system first and then allows as much freedom as possible to the shadow banking system, while making sure that the regualted system is not swallowed up by the shadow system.”

How?

Again, I do not know the answer to this issue.

The Economist magazine has described, over the years, the competition between London and New York for the location of the huge profits created by the shadown banking system. Other nations want a piece of that pie.

So, two not necessarily compatiable objectives. Preserve wealth in the U.S. by a healthy regulated banking system that has debt immune to adverse selection. Second, maintain welcome for the shadow banking system in the U.S.

Both systems must be allowed to gain profits. Gorton points to the survival problems of the regulated banking system when they no longer have a monopoly on lending. We saw, on September, 2008, the destructive consequences of allowing the shadow banking system to do whatever it wants.

I will join the ranks of those who do not know the best way to keep both banking systems alive and well in the U.S. One set of laws should be developed in the U.S. which focuses on preservation of the regulated banking system first and then allows as much freedom as possible to the shadow banking system, while making sure that the regualted system is not swallowed up by the shadow system.