rollinstone123

I hate to sound like a crony, but the "revolving door" concept makes sense, and frankly I think it is totally reasonable. He is a former regulator, so he no longer has influence on the laws, so he should be allowed to do whatever he wants. Furthermore, don't we want people that are experts in the financial field to be the ones working on policy in the same way we push for more scientists to influence global policy? The guy clearly is good at his job in finance, so wouldn't knowing the inner workings of the financial system be good while he was a regulator?

TurpenoidFever

I think problem is that it arguably hinders his ability to regulate if he's thinking, "hey, i better not be too hard on these folks who might be my future employers". We all want regulators to be tough but fair, especially the ones who are there to protect the financial stability of a nation. The revolving door compromises this ideology.

KoKansei

Bingo. Bernanke's actions in an official capacity directly benefited Citadel massively at the expense of millions of Americans who have had their savings and livelihoods stolen with artificially low interest rates. He scratched their back, now its time for them to scratch his. It is corruption of the highest order.

rollinstone123

The chairman isn't the only voice of regulatory policy though. I understand your mindset but I don't think that tough regulation is the answer to anything so I don't think we will agree on much of anything!

relative_iterator

As long as he doesn't have inside information to give that isn't available to the public, I agree. I have more concerns when a person who is the CEO of a large company moves into a public position like the FCC chair.

rollinstone123

Yeah, I think that as long as you are on one side of the fence at any given time I think it's okay.