Economic Optimism?
A few weeks back, I was watching a political chat show on television (I tried to track down a transcript, but couldn't find it, sorry), and the roundtable of pundits was asked what they thought the unemployment rate would be on election day in November. The responses (from a wide range of political viewpoints, left and right) were universally pessimistic -- from memory, they ranged from 8.7 percent to above 9.1 percent. No one was willing to go optimistic, at least on the air.
But what if they're all wrong? Even raising this question may lead to accusations of Pollyanna-ism, or rosy-colored-glasses-ism or whatever else you'd like to call it. The economy has been in the doldrums for so long that it seems nobody believes it will ever change, and even suggesting such a thing leads almost immediately to being seen as "out of touch."
This is understandable for politicians. If you make rosy economic predictions which turn out wrong, then your political opponents will never let you forget it. Pundits see themselves in the same boat, because risking a loss of credibility is just as bad (as they see it) for a pundit as for a politician.
But the economic news does indeed seem to be getting better out there. Unemployment has dropped a half a point in a matter of a few months, and today there was news that new filings for unemployment are at the lowest level since the recession began. If this leads to January's unemployment number going down once again, it's going to start entering the American consciousness and even the media's conventional-wisdom groupthink. There are signs that Americans are starting to feel slightly more optimistic about the economy already, and a steady stream of more good economic news will reinforce this trend.
President Obama can't really get out in front of the trend yet, though. He risks the most if he starts saying "we've turned the corner," and then things go south once again. And even if the economy does improve substantially over the next six months or so, it may not be enough to get Obama re-elected. Pundits are fond of pointing out that no president has been re-elected with unemployment much above seven percent since F.D.R. -- but then the recession Obama has been dealing with has been more severe than any we've seen since F.D.R.'s time, so it's hard to tell. F.D.R., after all, was the most re-elected president in American history. If unemployment goes down to, say, 7.6 percent by summertime, it won't be the number so much as the trendline the voters may be looking at. That's still a high rate, but if it's been coming steadily down voters may decide to "stay the course" anyway.
It's still early days to even know if the economy is truly about to enter a strong recovery or not. A few data points on a graph do not always a trend line make, to put it another way. But from what I have personally seen in previous recessions, there always seems to be a real "tipping point" where American businesses collectively decide that things are going to be better soon -- and then they start hiring people and fulfilling their own prophecy. This could indeed be such a turning point.
Of course, there are still all kinds of caveats. Europe could self-destruct, which would tank the American economy as well (and there would be precious little we could do about it, if it happens). The Middle East could explode, once again. Gas prices could become a bigger deal than unemployment. There are plenty of ways things could go wrong, in other words.
But still, it has become worth it to at least consider optimism when viewing the immediate future of the American economy. An optimistic outlook may turn out to be wrong, but at this point it is becoming more and more of a possibility that deserves some attention. Maybe the next time the question is asked of a panel of pundits, one of them will go semi-bold and predict an unemployment rate of 7.9 percent by election day. Three months ago, such a prediction would have been considered lunacy, but today it is looking much more likely, if the current trends hold.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris,
I'm all for optimism, as you well know. :)
But, right now, I'd settle for a little truth-telling about the state of the economy. And, I'm not getting that from any of the Republican candidates for president, for obvious reasons, nor are the credibility-challenged news media and punditocracy challenging any of the nonsense coming out of the Republican cult of economic failure.
Just today on the esteemed (no longer, in my view - though it's still better than all the rest) PBS Newshour, Gingrich said that the policies of Obama have resulted in more Americans on food stamps than under any other presidency in the history of the United States. He was completely unchallenged on this nonsense by Gwen Iffil(sp?)
There seems to be collective amnesia out there - across the media/blogosphere/punditocracy and across all political persuasions when it comes to what happened in the waning days of the Bush administration, what the situation was when Obama/Biden were sworn into office, and what is the health and outlook for the US economy today, nevermind what congressional Republicans have done and tried to do to block all manner of progress toward economic growth.
If Obama is not re-elected, it will not be as a result of a slow and sluggish recovery but rather due to a dangerously ill-informed electorate, easily manipulated to vote against their own best interests and that of their country.
NPR was covering the Gingrich line about food stamps.
More people went on food stamps under Bush, but it doesn't matter. The phrase "food-stamp president" is a deadly attack. It's one of those things where people to repeat the slogan as they try to rebut it, they evoke the emotional response, and the emotion makes more of an impression than the facts do.
The problem isn't that the line is false. The problem is that the line is true: the president's mother really was on food stamps briefly. She got off them pretty quickly, as most recipients do. But the fact remains that Obama isn't from what many voters feel is the "right" background. Republicans will keep on obliquely reminding them of it.
It's a matter of evoking the right feelings. People aren't outright opposed to upward mobility for those below them. They're ambivalent about it. The keeping-up-with-the-Joneses instinct is strong. Status ranking is a zero-sum game: if someone moves up to a higher percentile, someone else moves down. When people feel threatened, the urge to defend their current status gets stronger. On the other hand, everyone thinks there should be opportunity for the deserving poor to better themselves, at least in theory.
More people went on food stamps under Bush, but it doesn't matter.
Let's be accurate here..
More people went on Food Stamps during the Bush Administration, this is true.
But the Bush Administration lasted 8 years..
To give you the raw numbers, 14.7 million for Bush... 14.1 million for Obama.
A mere .6 million separates the two..
But the kicker is those numbers reflect EIGHT years for Bush and **THREE** years for Obama.
Obama put almost as many people on Food Stamps in THREE years that Bush did in EIGHT years...
So, it is imminently fair to say that Obama is a "Food Stamp" President...
He WANTS people to be dependent on the government.. That way, it assures Democrat dominance...
It's like a drug dealer that will give customers "free samples" of drugs to get them hooked.. Then, when the customers can't survive without the drugs, then the dealer starts exacting payment..
Michale
dsws
The problem isn't that the line is false. The problem is that the line is true.
Actually, the line Gingrigh is using is completely false. Gingrich says that, let me repeat what I posted earlier, Obama's policies have put more Americans on food stamps than the policies of any other president in the history of the United States.
I then went on to point out in my comment that there may indeed be more Americans on food stamps right now than have been under any other US administration. But, here's the kicker ... that has not happened as a result of Obama's policies. In fact, if it were not for Obama's policies and how this administration has handled the most destructive economic downturn since the Great Depression, then there would have been a much higher number of folks on food stamps.
That is the fact of the matter and people may choose to ignore that - at their own peril - or not.
Michale,
I refuse to believe that you believe most of what you write here.
CW,
You bring up something I've been pondering for a bit. Economics is largely confidence.
The monied interests have been spending a lot of time publicizing this notion that the economy is having a terrible, horrible, rotten, very bad day.
Yet at the same time, many corporations are reporting strong profits.
What seems to be happening is that the reality on the ground is conflicting with the 24/7 news cycle reality. My hypothesis is that if the news finally starts printing some of the positives, the economy may really take off.
Unsolicited stock tip: If you're an investor, it might be a good time to hop in the market. Based on my HAH theory (or Half Ass Hypothesis), I bought in November and am up about 8% since then on my purchases. Disclaimer: I don't want to hear about it if you buy and lose. The hypothesis is not called HAH for nothing.
-David
Liz,
The facts are the facts...
In 8 years, Bush put 14.7 million on Food Stamps..
In 3 years, Obama put 14.1 million on Food Stamps.
Do the math..
As far as the Drug Dealer analogy, that's my opinion..
Seems to me that those who make themselves a slave of the system are voting against their best interests..
dsws,
She got off them pretty quickly, as most recipients do.
Spoken as someone who has never been on public welfare...
The welfare system is designed to keep people on....
Michale
The site logged me out in the middle of posting, and lost what I had written.
dsws -
Really? I've never heard this problem before, has it happened to anyone else?
The site, since the upgrade, seems to log you out if you haven't done anything on it for a while -- but the "while" is like a full day, I think. Other than that, it could have been an ISP problem, we've been having storms here so the power might have blinked down at the server farm...
Anyway, my apologies. Please let me know if this is a recurring problem.
-CW
Unsolicited stock tip: If you're an investor, it might be a good time to hop in the market. Based on my HAH theory (or Half Ass Hypothesis), I bought in November and am up about 8% since then on my purchases. Disclaimer: I don't want to hear about it if you buy and lose. The hypothesis is not called HAH for nothing.
What should I buy?? :D
Speaking of buying... I have picked out my XMAS present for next year...
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/20/brookstones-wifi-cufflinks-let-you-discreetly-share-data-inter
Unfortunately, all I wear are tank tops, so these will be utterly useless.. But still.. WAY kewl!!! :D
Michale
Michale -
Oh, right, Obama took office and gathered his advisors around him and said: "Let's see how we can get as many Americans dependent on the government. I want more and more Americans on food stamps!"
[rolls eyes]
Seriously, you're being ludicrous. Or displaying your mind-reading abilities.
Maybe I should restate a long-standing view I hold. The president, no matter what party, simply does not have a big lever in the Oval Office which allows him to slow down or speed up the economy. Or "create jobs." I don't fault or credit presidents for the normal economic cycle, because they really don't have a lot to do with it. Having said that, I do realize that politically they are held accountable, whether it's fair or not. I don't think George W. Bush was personally responsible for everything Wall Street did on his watch, and even if the economy roars back I don't think it's because of anything Obama did. But I realize I'm in a small minority, because everyone else will indeed give Obama lots of credit or rip into Bush. To put it another way, neither Obama nor Bush "put" anyone on food stamps -- it's a ridiculous sentence construction, either way.
I can't say I've never dragged the issue into my writing, but I usually try to explain how what "everyone" sees politically is one thing, and the reality I believe in is a bit different. But sometimes I don't explicitly lay it all out like that, I'll fully admit.
-CW
Michale
The facts mean nothing if they are not placed in proper context.
I thought you knew that.
Oh, right, Obama took office and gathered his advisors around him and said: "Let's see how we can get as many Americans dependent on the government. I want more and more Americans on food stamps!"
Not specifically...
But a President can (and has) create conditions where welfare rolls rise and fall..
If I recall correctly, Clinton made the welfare rolls fall..
Obama is making them rise again...
Michale.....
dsws,
The site logged me out in the middle of posting, and lost what I had written.
Maybe the site is set up now where it knows yer posting BS and so it auto-logs you out..
No... That can't be it.. Else I'de never
Michale,
Do you remember what happened in the waning days of the Bush administration?
Let me jog your memory ... we experienced a global financial crisis more destructive than the Great Depression and we're all still trying to recover from it.
When Obama took office the economy was circling the drain. His polices arrested that free fall and turned the economy around. You can be sure the recovery would be a lot better than it is now if it were not for the imbecilic behavior of congressional Republicans, all card-carrying members of the Republican cult of economic failure.
Let's talk about how you create the conditions necessary to block any and all progress toward economic growth, shall we?
When Obama took office the economy was circling the drain. His polices arrested that free fall and turned the economy around.
No... His policies were bandaids on a failed system and we're STILL limping along with no REAL recovery in sight...
Now, had Bush and Obama just let the system fail....
"Jim. They're dying."
"LET them die!!"
-STAR TREK VI The Undiscovered Country
.... then we could have built a BETTER system and be well on the way to a REAL recovery...
But Obama surrounded himself with the VERY people who were RESPONSIBLE for "a global financial crisis more destructive than the Great Depression" (your words) and they did the same things that CAUSED the problem..
The very definition of insanity....
Michale
Michale,
But Obama surrounded himself with the VERY people who were RESPONSIBLE for "a global financial crisis more destructive than the Great Depression" (your words) and they did the same things that CAUSED the problem...
I take it you're not a fellow Geithner fan. You should be.
In fact, you should be down on your knees thanking the Gods and everything sacred that Geithner did what he did to rescue the financial sector and save Main Street from a fate that would make the last few years look like the proverbial walk in the park, with candy floss!
Let me ask you this ... who isn't responsible, in one way or another, for what led to this global financial crisis? That's a very short list, indeed! And, I can damn sure guarantee you that no one on that list could have come close to handling this mess in a more prudent and effective manner than Geithner.
Time will tell as to who is right or wrong on this..
I know, I know.. It usually does.. :D
But I'll bet ya 10K quatloos that, in 5-10 years (probably sooner), there will be ANOTHER "global financial crisis" that will have it's roots in doing the same old thing, over and over, hoping for a different outcome...
We simply will not have economic stability until we hit on a system that actually WORKS...
The GOP way of deregulation up the arse doesn't work...
The DEM way of throwing trillion and trillions at the problem doesn't work...
Our system is flawed... And no amount of bandaids will change that...
Michale
Michale,
I don't quite know how to break this to ya but, in 5 - 10 years, we'll still be recovering from this mess. You can take that to the bank!
The Dodd-Frank regime should work quite well, if the Republicans don't succeed in screwing it up first! This is hardly doing the same thing over and over again. This was a BFD, you know. :)
This is hardly doing the same thing over and over again. This was a BFD, you know. :)
of course, of course it was a BFD. because we must WTF.
i meant "win the future" of course.
really.
i don't know if i agree with michale on letting our system fail, but it definitely needs bigger changes than anyone seems willing to actually discuss. don't get me wrong, i'm glad our economy didn't tank completely. however, just because geithner was the right guy to avert implosion doesn't make him the right guy to prevent another such crisis. our country needs a teddy Roosevelt type to bust some financial skulls.
nypoet22,
Fortunately, it doesn't matter what you or Michale think Geithner is capable of, he's already well on the way to ensuring that another financial crisis like this one will never happen again and that the financial system is stronger, more resilient and better able to withstand any future financial crisis.
Of course, all of this hinges on what the US electorate will allow members of the Republican cult of economic failure to get away with ...
Fortunately, it doesn't matter what you or Michale think Geithner is capable of
liz,
in the context of U.S. politics, the canadian vote matters a bit less.
"Take off or I'm going to do the steamroller on you! Steamroller!"
~Strange Brew
Interesting quote ...
You know, in 2008, I lost roughly 40% of the value my retirement savings portfolio thanks to bad policy south of the border.
This despite the fact that not one single Canadian financial institution (and we have some pretty damn big ones up here, let me assure you) failed during this financial crisis.
Most Americans don't understand how the actions and policies of their leaders have serious repercussions around the world.
Elizabeth (comment 23), seconded with infinite exclamation marks.
The Dodd-Frank regime should work quite well, if the Republicans don't succeed in screwing it up first!
I'm dubious. My impression is that Dodd-Frank did some things that needed to be done, but it left undone some other things that also needed to be done.
It provides "resolution authority", i.e. when a systemically important financial firm is failing, the government has options other than letting the system implode and doing a complete bailout. But as far as I know, there are are still a bunch of implicit guarantees around, firms can still make money off them, and the biggest of the big are bigger than ever. It requires clearinghouses for derivatives that formerly were traded completely out of sight. But those are derivatives that should be traded on exchanges, not in clearinghouses, and some other derivatives can still be traded out of sight if I remember right. It's been a while since I formed my opinion of it, though, and I have the feeling I've gotten some stuff wrong in how I remember it. Then there's Fannie and Freddie: they're still trouble waiting to happen again, as far as I've heard. They were only bit players in causing the current mess, despite what right-wingers say. But they were involved, and they do need to be fixed.
Most Americans don't understand how the actions and policies of their leaders have serious repercussions around the world.
If America is such a bad investment, why do people keep investing it in??
We're obviously doing SOMETHING right..
Although, for the life of me, I can't imagine what that would be.. :D
"I must've done something right in a previous life. Can't imagine what that could've been."
-Simon Phoenix, DEMOLITION MAN
:D
Michale
Michale,
Did I say America was a bad investment? Actually, I would be the last person on the face of the earth to ever even think such a thing as that.
I would have though that much would have been clear as mud around here ... ahem ... :(
Kevin,
I knew you would understand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...
dsws,
Why is it that people do not seem to be the least bit satisfied with anything unless it is everything they hoped for and dreamed of, and then some!?
I think people should be more supportive of Frank-Dodd and less dismissive of all that Geithner was able to accomplish with this regulatory regime. Indeed, if the administration had more support on this from all of its countless fair-weather friends, then it may have been an even more effective piece of legislation than it already is.
There is still time, though, to show support ... as far as I know, the Republicans and their lobbyist friends are trying everything they can to thwart the rule-making process, as we speak ...
Chris[11]
So, I hope you're not suggesting that this financial crisis would not have been handled any differently by a McCain/Palin administration. Because that would stretch political reality beyond its extremes.
I wonder who McCain would have chosen to be his treasury secretary. Hey, now there's an idea for Newt ... maybe he could write an alternate history novel about how that turns out! Heh.
Michale,
Now, had Bush and Obama just let the system fail
... then we could have built a BETTER system and be well on the way to a REAL recovery...
What is the basis for such an outrageous assertion as that?
Now, had Bush and Obama just let the system fail
... then we could have built a BETTER system and be well on the way to a REAL recovery...
What is the basis for such an outrageous assertion as that?
Simple..
The system is flawed and imperfect. EVERYONE agrees on that..
It would be highly unlikely that a new and improved system could be any worse..
Unless, of course, the same people who frak'ed up the economy were the same ones who were put in charge of fixing it.....
Hmmmmmmmmm
You might have a point.... :D
Michale
Michale,
I knew you would see it my way. :)
Damn!! Foiled again!!! :D
Michale
dan,
I'm dubious. My impression is that Dodd-Frank did some things that needed to be done, but it left undone some other things that also needed to be done.
that was my point exactly. it's perfectly legitimate to be both pleased with some things the administration has done and critical of others. obama is neither the disaster his opponents like to paint him as, nor the brilliant savior portrayed by his staunchest defenders. he's been a sort of so-so, average president, which is a vast improvement over his predecessor but very, very far from the sort of change his campaign led us to hope for. to some extent he's the victim of his own rhetoric.
would mccain have been better? would gingrich? my guess is that they would be worse, but i can't call that an absolute certainty either.
liz,
Interesting quote ...
i guess it loses something without the image of rick moranis in pajamas and a straitjacket trying to roll over you :)
http://youtu.be/pnsroOL-MEk
Why is it that people do not seem to be the least bit satisfied with anything unless it is everything they hoped for and dreamed of, and then some!?
everything i hoped and dreamed of is so far away from what we have that it's not even in sight. from a president who came in with "the fierce urgency of now," i say that "we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." that said, i'd settle for him not throwing his hat in with arne duncan, michelle rhee and the moneyed interests who are destroying education. i'd settle for some form of public option; if not from the federal government then maybe at the state level. i'd settle for an executive order preventing the foreclosure of homeowners with fraudulent robo-signed mortgages. i'd settle for letting the bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, when all that's required to accomplish this is not to sign legislation that stops them from expiring.
I think these are legitimate criticisms. He's done a number of things well too, and for those he has my praise. Overall i'd give obama a C. Sure, he'd probably be better than the alternative, but that's not exactly cause for enthusiasm. if someone from a foreign country thinks that attitude is ungrateful, i honestly can't bring myself to care. in 2008 i didn't vote for somebody who i hoped would be an average politician, gently tilting the rudder to avoid one iceberg when there are five more on the horizon. if he wants my vote this year he has ten months to show me something better.
to backtrack for a moment, i'm glad that geithner saved your retirement. i'm fully aware that our mistakes here affect the whole world, not just us. however, all these issues take on a different meaning when you have to live here.
The problem we're trying to solve is that there are rich teams and there are poor teams, then there's fifty feet of crap, and then there's us.
-moneyball
~joshua
joshua,
i'm glad that geithner saved your retirement.
I guess that's why I have a soft spot in my heart for him. Hehehehehe
I am sure that Obama/Biden/Geithner could have lived up to more of your expectations if they didn't have the Republican cult of economic failure and foreign policy disaster to contend with.
In any event, they are infinitely better than the alternative and people will fail to recognize that at their own peril. Of course, the rest of us out in the world won't do so well, either ...
Why is it that people do not seem to be the least bit satisfied with anything unless it is everything they hoped for and dreamed of, and then some!?
In this case, it's because the law in question won't stop Wall Street from collapsing the economy again. I told my representative and senators to vote for it, but it's only a first step. We'll be right back in another round of financial crisis unless we pass the rest of the minimum necessary reforms.
"Everything I hoped for" would lead to a much more equitable distribution of wealth. I'm not holding my breath for that. I'd be glad to see reforms that just prevent another catastrophe.
dsws,
Everything is dependent upon how effective the rules of the game will be. They are in the process of being written now and Republicans are doing everything they can to weaken those rules, in particular, and the Dodd-Frank regime, in general.
How would you improve the Dodd-Frank regime?
How would you improve the Dodd-Frank regime?
Let me count the ways ...
Make it less susceptible to rules hold-ups: have the statute forbid broad swaths of possibly-problematic financial dealings, until and unless regulators check them out and say they're ok, instead of having stuff mostly go ahead until regulators say it isn't ok.
Split up the huge financial firms, and create disincentives for having them get big again.
Have a lot more derivatives trading be done on exchanges instead of clearinghouses.
End regulator shopping: regulators' budgets come from fees on the firms they regulate. That means that if a firm can switch itself from being nominally an whatchamacallit to being nominally a thingamajig, the Whatchamacallit Regulatory Bureau loses money and the Office of Thingamajig Supervision gains money. The two agencies are then in the position of having a bidding war if they want to keep their respective budgets. Keep the turf wars in channels other than a direct race to the bottom.
No implicit guarantees. Any firm that's big enough for its failure to cause problems has an implicit guarantee. The resolution authority in Dodd-Frank partially addresses this, by trying to not have it be such a problem when a financial behemoth is insolvent. But it has to be dealt with from the other two directions as well: split up the impossibly-large firms, and provide explicit guarantees (explicitly paid for, just as ordinary banks pay for deposit insurance) wherever there's any ghost of suspicion that the government might feel the need to do a bailout if the unthinkable happened.
In-source government. The financial sector is regulated more by FINRA, a private organization, than it is by the SEC or any other government agency. Government should take over most of those functions.
Gather and publish financial statistics and analysis. Financial analysis is left to private-sector financial analysts. Government gathers statistics about employment and demographics and gods-know-what else. There should be government bureaucrats issuing reports of all sorts of financial numbers. They should estimate what stocks are theoretically worth, based on models of the fundamentals. They should publish tables of a number called the "force of interest" for all future time periods for which bonds exist, and for a range of categories of risk.
Regulate the ratings companies. They claim to be just exercising their first-amendment rights. But they also have an extraordinary amount of power, because of the role they play in the system. Don't let them have it both ways. You can't forbid them from publishing their opinions. Instead, forbid them from playing the role they do, without some sort of overt contract that has them explicitly legally doing something other than shooting their mouths off.
Cultivate a set of independent experts. Regulators see things from the financial industry's point of view, because there's no set of experts without strong connections to the big firms. Endow some professorships and scholarships that come with strings attached, saying that the person can't work for any financial firm for ten years.
Fix corporate governance. Firms are supposed to maximize return to shareholders. Instead, they're normally dominated by management. Boards of directors are CEO cronies, not spokespeople for the ordinary pension-fund shareholder.
Fix accounting. Many financial firms were presumed to be "zombie banks": insolvent but cooking their books to make themselves temporarily look solvent as they took wilder and wilder long-shot bets in hopes of recovering. Make it harder to cook their books.
Fix Fannie and Freddie.
Change the whole outlook. There's a presumption that markets always know best. Markets are wonderful things: That's not just an opinion. It's a loose paraphrase of a theorem. But the theorem applies to idealized goods markets and to (even more idealized) labor markets. It doesn't apply at all to financial markets. The reason markets are so wonderful is that no one has to know anything, except how to do their own job, what they want to consume, and the prices of the (relatively) few things they're interested in buying or selling. Competition forces them to do the efficient thing, no matter what delusions they may be entertaining about the system as a whole. Financial markets are completely the opposite. Everything depends on everyone's expectations about everyone else's expectations about everything.
That's a minimum of what has to be done to avoid having another collapse in a few years. I don't expect one law to do it all. I don't fault Dodd-Frank for not doing it all. I do insist that Dodd-Frank by itself is light-years away from being enough.
dsws,
Wow. I mean, just ... wow!
I'm going to have to deal with all of that when I get back from Mexico.
Lots of food for thought, though ... I may have to print this off and take it with me. :)
Seriously!
I should add that Dodd-Frank does make some progress in a number of those areas, and I'm very far from having thoroughly evaluated every aspect of the law.
The provisions of Dodd-Frank regarding the credit rating firms are probably even adequate -- adequate to hold up their part if the other stuff happened, anyway, if not to make up for shortcomings elsewhere. With regulator shopping dealt only a minor setback, and intellectual capture completely unchallenged, we're headed for trouble no matter what's done on relatively minor points like the ratings companies.
On second (third?) thought, no. The stuff in Dodd-Frank about the ratings "agencies" probably isn't adequate. It's enough for the "regulate" part of it, but you have to have both regulation and structure. The ratings "agencies" have to be paid for doing their job well, not for pleasing the firms they rate. The people trying to make a killing will probably still have a big edge over the people just trying to avoid losing their accreditation.