“Whoever is in command will determine the agency’s path. When you have a lot of power vested in an agency, everything depends on how effectively they carry out their rulemaking authority.”

-Kathleen Engel, a Suffolk University law professor who sits on the Federal Reserve’s Consumer Advisory Council (WSJ).


The real question is, who will be the first chairperson of this agency ?



Consumer Agency’s Path Will Be Set by First Chief
WSJ, JULY 6, 2010

Category: Bailouts, Consumer Spending

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

33 Responses to “Who Will Chair Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ?”

  1. alfred e says:

    This is what used to be referred to as polishing the turd.

    The “…” agency is a farce. A political ploy that will put even more people into the bureaucracy.

    And accomplish nothing important. Except to inflate transaction costs to fund the gov idiots.

    Want to do something important? Do what they used to do. Impose usury limits.

    Too simple.

    Kind of like the SEC. And the …

  2. mbelardes says:

    “Who Will Chair Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ?”

    Here are the choices:

    A. Professor in nonFinance field.
    B. Political Lackey
    C. Wall Street Insider

    Anyone that can just repeat a billion times, “We have to protect and preserve the middle class … The Middle Class … THE MIDDLE CLASS!!!” Has a good shot. When it comes to regulating complex financial products aimed at consumers, it seems the more you talk about the consumers and the less you understand the products, the further you go in Washington.

  3. davefromcarolina says:

    Simon Johnson explains why not naming Elizabeth Warren will produce, um, bad outcomes.

  4. rev29 says:

    The only way we can really be protected is to have a chairman that really knows the score.
    My vote is for the esteemed Barney Frank. If he’s in jail or otherwise not available, then it’s got to be Lloyd or Jaime.

  5. Tarkus says:

    Elizabeth Warren

    So far, she hasn’t sold-out as far as I have read… (Brooksley Born too).

  6. bergsten says:

    I nominate Lloyd Blankstein. He doesn’t even have to quit his day job.

    And, to quote Monty Python:

    Hello, sir, hello, yes. No sir, no, I’m sure you didn’t. No, it’s all right, sir, we don’t morally censure, we just want the money….Yes, and here’s the address to send it to:

    Voice Over (and CAPTION:)


  7. mbelardes says:

    Looks like Tarkus goes with option A.

  8. Rescission says:

    What a disaster. Its times like these that make me embarrassed at how stupid we are as a country. More government agencies, more spending, more politics, more lobbyists and more money being spent to get the regulations you need to do your business. I think I am going to puke.

    “you say government on your side, I say government get out of my way”. – President Reagan.

  9. Tarkus says:

    mbelardes Says: Looks like Tarkus goes with option A.

    Didn’t experts in their field tell us the subprime was contained – and that no one could see the meltdown coming? (Except the FBI who reported rampant mortgage fraud in 2004).

    So what’s your point?

  10. louis says:


  11. willid3 says:

    wasn’t it the private sector with their cronies in government that got us where are today? didn’t they tell us that if we cut their taxes, increased defense spending that we would have lots of jobs. well history doesn’t seem to support them. we had the weakest job growth ever recorded. ever. and their economists keep telling us do these things and things will turn out well. and its the same ones that couldn’t see the on rushing train that turned out to be the great recession only just barely avoiding a depression

  12. mbelardes says:


    Spitzer is our guy. Or some State Attorney General with an economic crime background or SEC prosecutor. Option B, I guess.

    We need someone with an axe to grind that knows how to grind it and is just looking for a stone.

    Warren’s going to get it though. She’s pulled all the right strings and she has the mantra down. I was actually alluding to her with my “Middle Class” comments.

    I’d like to be on the confirmation committee and just ask the nominee about Variable Annuities/Life Insurance, Adjustable Rate Mortgages, various Credit Card Provisions, Mutual Funds, Unit Investment Trusts, etcetera. My point being that whoever they install will be someone that doesn’t know about Consumer Financial Products or how they are abused on a regular basis.

  13. Petey Wheatstraw says:


    Ya’ beat me to it.

    So, I’ll go w/ Phil Gramm.

  14. To me, there’s something about this: “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau”, that fits, neatly, within this Individual’s (David Galland) musings (excerpted, below)..

    “…An increasing number of the mules seem to me to have become disheartened at the difficulty of creating and keeping enough wealth to live the life envisioned in youthful dreams. And correctly so: building lasting wealth is relatively easy when you keep 90%, but nearly impossible when you keep just 40%. And, if the trend now in motion continues in motion, the productive elements will soon be lucky to keep 30%.
    While even I can’t foresee things getting as bad as they did in Britain in 1974, when the top 750,000 wage earners were slapped with a tax rate of 98%, the steady build toward more regulations, more government, more tariffs, and more taxes in more sectors of the economy will affect a broader swath of the public and, in so doing, weigh even more heavily on the nation…”
    “…For the government, with its switch long rusted on expansion mode, the promises of a better tomorrow must be preserved, if only as an inspirational illusion…”
    “…when John F. Kennedy delivered his signature line, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country.”

    In today’s paradigm, millions of Americans demand that the country do more for them than they are willing or able to do for themselves, for many in no small part because they have already been asked to give up so much. At the same time, the government is making increasingly muscular demands that those still able to give, give more…”

  15. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    Rescission Says:

    “you say government on your side, I say government get out of my way”. – President Reagan.

    Well we did what that doddering old dickhead suggested, and here we freekin’ are. Reagan did us no favors.

  16. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    MEH: I’ve seen a whole lot of taking and not much giving by the upper crust over the past 30 years. They’ve reaped greater wealth than their peers from any other time period and/or any other nation in history. They have raped and pillaged the American dream and sold it off, at a loss, for scrap. We hold the debt that made them wealthy. Globalism, regulatory capture, corporatism and crony capitalism where their loyalties lie. The absolute worst thing we could do is to go down without taking them with us.

  17. philipat says:

    Elizabeth Warren has passion, integrity knows what needs to get done and is smart enough to get it done irrespective of stepping on the Gucci loafers of the special one’s on Wall Street.

    But, of course, those are all good reasons why she doesn’t have a chance.

  18. Andy T says:

    That’s awesome. Yet another government agency there to “protect us.” Can’t wait….

    Yeah, Elizabeth Warren…that’s exactly what we need….a “nanny” figure to help us see the error of our many ways.


  19. yon’ Wheatstraw,

    along the lines of “Rescission” http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rescission, maybe what is needed is, to dial it up a notch, “Abrogation” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abrogation ..

    to your point “We hold the debt that made them wealthy.”

    though, with a certain Irony, much of that ‘Debt’ is, now, being held as an ‘Asset’–inside J&J4P’s ‘Retirement’ Accounts..

    past that, this: “Globalism, regulatory capture, corporatism and crony capitalism where their loyalties lie.” , would be difficult to Argue.

    as this http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/publications/scenarios-future-technology

    and the QOTD: “Do you know the only thing that gives me pleasure? It is to see my dividends coming in.” —John D. Rockefeller

    would begin to allude to..

    but, We should realize, much as Galland, above, is pointing out, that We are the ones ‘funding’, not only, our own Capitivity, but, also the ‘Wealth’ of those, as you say, that ‘ have raped and pillaged the American dream and sold it off’..

  20. Winston Munn says:

    Anyone but Rubin.

  21. RW says:

    “…whoever they install will be someone that doesn’t know about Consumer Financial Products or how they are abused on a regular basis.”

    Then they certainly won’t install Elizabeth Warren because she is an expert in consumer law and knows consumer financial products and their abuses cold.

  22. or, maybe, if We continue to disregard the, potential, Insights of this POV: http://99percentspace.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/the-modern-slaves-guide-to-modern-slavery/

    We can believe that the “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” will be as efficacious as the FDA (and the rest of the Exec-Branch’s ‘Alphabet Soup’ of ‘Regulatory Agencies’..

    “…against the health of humanity is the paltry fine levied against GlaxoSmithKline by our protectors, the Food and Drug Administration. The drug, Avandia, which was cited in 2007 as a potential danger, has indeed become one at the rate of around 500 heart attacks and 300 cases of heart failure per month. The fine of $2.1 billion after taxes — which may seem large to most — is less than a third of Glaxo’s annual profit.

    Avandia was not banned; by a 20-12 decision it can continue to be sold to the very same segment of the population that is likely to continue harming. The fine is nothing compared to the continued profits that will result from the FDA’s current refusal to pull this killer drug off the market.

    A Wall Street Journal opinion piece rejoiced and investors cheered over the decision, while the New York Times reported:…”

    or, maybe not..

  23. VennData says:

    Stephen Malkmus would be my choice.


    I would add that whoever decided to dump local favorite Goose Island should receive a GOP health care plan and a BP dilling outside their charming seaside retirement home. Or better yet be forced to listen to that “band” before Pavement that you called Big Boi? Where did you dig them up? The local CIA torture chamber? What garbage.

  24. Ilya says:

    Barring the implimentation of usuary laws by the States, which was outlawed in the consumer friendly FinReg legistlation, I offer the following candidates;

    Willie Sutton
    Hjalmar Horace Greely Schacht
    Harpo Marx
    Or any other philosopher of Comedia Grotesque. (Schacht actually adulterated the Nazi gold hoard or so it was told. If you ever get a chance to bid on a kilo of pre war Nazi gold, multiply the spot by .97)

    But …who could resist the lovalable and ever popular law abiding Toonces…the driving cat. Oh, I forgot that Toonces already has a day job at a trading desk at the Fed…He buys and rolls 2 year treasuries with new digital promises from treasury.

    Was it car dealers that were exempted from Fin Reg?

    Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining. Consumer protection indeed!!!

  25. mbelardes says:

    @Elizabeth Warren supporters above

    I understand your admiration. I’m just saying, I’ve seen her in a dozen interviews and I’ve watched multiple seminars of hers online. Most notably is her Charlie Rose interviews last year and this year as well as a one hour lecture she gave that (I think) BR posted.

    I did not get the impression she understood financial transactions or products and why or how they evolved to their current state, though its true she had a great command of legal issues. She seemed more intent on proving big business is out to destroy the middle class. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe she was trying to level with a perceived audience or something. But she’s definitely not a Spitzer-type and I think we need a ball buster.

  26. flipspiceland says:

    What strikes me is the number of posters here who respond with some candidate as if this bureau is anything but another government boondoggle for those Bamster supporters and democrats (not that a republican admenstruation would be any more credible) who want a government (read: “I don’t want to work for a living”) “job”.

    Amazing, even to ask the question.

  27. tawm says:

    Valerie Jarrett (or Chicagoland equivalent)

  28. Stuckintexas says:

    I don’t see how you all missed it. Sarah Palin is the obvious choice. She would arrive with no preconceived idea about anything.

  29. riley says:

    Chris Dodd

    The bill was not only about his legacy, it was his retirement plan.

  30. FrancoisT says:

    Mark E Hoffer wrote:

    Avandia was not banned; by a 20-12 decision it can continue to be sold to the very same segment of the population that is likely to continue harming. The fine is nothing compared to the continued profits that will result from the FDA’s current refusal to pull this killer drug off the market.

    Just a small quibble: The FDA hasn’t refused yet to kill Avandia. It’s their “experts” panel. The FDA usually follow their recommendations (with emphasis on the “usually”) .

    Now, why would the Experts Panel do that?



    Text in [ ] is mine

    Ironically, while this discussion of how the Avandia spin cycle first began to revolve were going on, others were still trying to add revolutions (per minute). In particular, a Reuters story noted:

    Three influential groups of doctors who treat diabetes urged patients not to stop taking Avandia, saying on Thursday that while news about the controversial drug may be frightening, it would be worse to suddenly stop taking it.

    That is odd, given that Avandia has never been shown to improve clinical outcomes for patients with diabetes, [You wouldn't know that without a thorough exam of the real evidence; and that is a sad testament to how low we've dropped, from the country with the best drug safety system to...well...rather mediocre] and that there are many other drugs that control blood sugar which appear to be safer. But wait, there is more,

    The Endocrine Society, American Diabetes Association and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists worried that patients may be afraid to take Avandia.

    ‘Patients should continue taking all currently prescribed medications unless instructed otherwise by their health care provider,’ Dr. Robert Vigersky of the Endocrine Society said in a statement.

    ‘Stopping diabetes medications can cause significant harm and result in higher levels of blood glucose that may cause severe short term health problems and could increase the risk of diabetes-related complications in the long term.’

    Would not it make more sense to advise patients still on Avandia to consult with their doctors urgently about possible alternatives? [Can anyone spell D-U-H?] Meanwhile, it does not seem irrational to be afraid of taking Avandia, [a very polite way to put it, no?] given the increasing evidence about its harms, and increasing evidence that what we know about its harms may be an under-estimate.

    So I wondered why these august medical societies seemed so unaffected about the doubts about Avandia’s safety, and about the evidence offered to support its use that the latest news ought to generate. It turns out that all three of the medical societies get financial support from, — wait for it –, GlaxoSmithKline.

    The Endocrine Society lists GSK as one of its Corporate Liaison Board Members. The American Diabetes Association lists GSK as one of its Banting Circle Supporters, that is, those that give at least $1,000,000 a year. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists lists GSK as a member of its Corporate AACE Partnership. (I was not able to find out the total amount contributed by GSK to either the Endocrine Society or the AACE.)

    So once again, the loudest voices in support of the product come from those used to, and perhaps dependent on financial support from its manufacturer. As a physician, I have been particularly disappointed that our medical societies, whose missions are ostensibly to support our professional values, seem to act more and more like marketers for the companies whose contributions, rather than members’ dues increasingly support them.

    Note what the not so loudest (read: money voices) voices were saying about this fine and upstanding corporate citizen that is Glaxo-Smith-Kline:


    “GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Avandia, can’t be trusted to report adverse clinical results fairly. The company must be watched like a hawk as additional trials that it sponsors go forward.”


    “What America should demand in return for … [generous patent] protection is that the FDA be able to make an honest evaluation of the efficacy of drugs. When drug companies make this impossible by suppressing test results, not only do they violate their fundamental obligation of honesty with the public, their customers and their regulator, but they also break the bargain they have struck in return for the protection of their intellectual capital.”

    One wonders when this madness of letting corporate offenders getting out easy will stop. There could be some hope, with, again, heavy emphasis on the word “some”:


    In the meantime, follow this basic advice from your physician: “Don’t hold your breath.”

  31. formerlawyer says:


    Got it in one. Plus wouldn’t it pull the rug out from under a potential presidential candidate whatever she chose?

  32. advisor says:

    Kerrie L. Campbell is the best choice. The purpose of the Bureau is to regulate the messages flowing from financial institutions, which requires a deep knowledge of multiple areas of law–each of which Kerrie is an expert at. Getting her to take the job is another matter!