Bernanke: Regulations "designed to protect consumers without shutting off access to responsible credit"

Thanks, those are some interesting statements from Bernanke.

For the most part I like the message.

As I started to write this, however, I noted a subtle twist at the end. I notice that at the beginning Bernanke talks about mortgage borrowers, which is fine with me, but at the end he says it's "consumers" who would be protected.

It's probably unintentional, and just an automatic word from our common economic vocabulary rather than a purely conservative talking point. But talking about "consumers" rather than "citizens", "working Americans", or just plain "people", to me that invokes a frame about our economy that conservatives tend to exploit. Now I wonder: Is this really about protecting people, or is it about protecting a consumption-driven economy?

I'm glad you added your comment at the end, about keeping an eye on those folks. To me Bernanke represents a group of people that I do not trust, a radical and reckless executive administration, so I won't be surprised if later deeds belie those progressive words.

I do think it's helpful to recognize and reinforce progressive ideas when they come from conservative-leaning sources. So, thanks for sharing this!

Cheers

Good point about citizens vs. consumers! Hadn't thought of it that way, but you are definitely right. And I too don't trust that this is not just a way to try and deregulate the industry more.

Thanks for the note!

The notion that the public needs to be protected is consistent with the paternalistic model of society that conservatives favor. Moreover, it suggests that a problem (deceptive money men) should/can be corrected by shielding the object, rather than doing something about the agent's anti-social behavior (cheating). It's a variant of the suggestion that because women might be attacked if they go out alone, they should stay home.
What's entirely missing is any awareness that an agent of government is a public servant or that the first mission is to promote the public welfare. If that were the approach taken, then it would be obvious that any deception in the financial sector is a detriment to the economy. Deception isn't something from which people need to be protected; deception is something that needs to be prevented and/or stopped.
The problem with a commitment to an authoritarian/hierarchical system of social organization is that the authorities, whose effort to dominate is naturally challenged by independent individuals, actual have a common interest with those who deceive in order to subjugate. This too is similar to the interest of the pater familias whose interest in having his women folk stay home is supported by those who threaten them with assault. (a pattern also evident in the terrorist threat)
Now, given human nature, it would be unreasonable to expect that deception would ever be entirely stopped. However, most economic enterprise is conducted by corporate entities--i.e. fictional persons. And, while the corporation was originally designed to relieve the individual participants of personal liability for mistakes or failure, there's no reason why a fictional person can't be terminated for not meeting the ethical standards of behavior we have established for everyone--i.e. never mind monetary penalties; just revoke the charter.

When you come right down to it, the conservative desideratum is power without responsibility--paternity without commitment.