The first step might be better taken to address the $8 Trillion debt and a budget deficit that is out of sight, rather than spending another $30 Billion in welfare for homeowners. The Federal Reserve's bail-out of Bear Stern at taxpayer's expense is inflationary, i.e. just print more paper money. With the Euro at $1.57 when a year ago it was .70c ought to be a storm warning to anyone with a 10th grade education.

When I hear Robert Rubin's name mentioned in this regard I'm reminded of Joe Kennedy. In the 20s Kennedy made a fortune manipulating the stock market. During that time he felt that he would make as much money as possible before someone figured out that many of the practices should really be illegal. Roosevelt appointed Kennedy first head of the new SEC because Joe knew all the tricks. Kennedy was an effective head of the SEC and got the new commission off to a great start.

For that reason I have no qualms about involving a Robert Rubin in the process.

As for Greenspan, I wouldn't trust him to place my trash at curbside. But many people still relate his name to some form of great wisdom. For two decades the press billed Greenspan as a magical wizard and events probably haven't cut through the myth in the public's mind.

Using Greenspan's name in a speech doesn't necessarily mean that he would be used in any capacity except perhaps as a figurehead.

I think that Clinton would have to be very careful about unveiling a comprehensive regimen of regulatory action as long as Wall Street money is necessary for the campaign.

Expect FAR less from Obama. He's at least as dependent on Wall Street money as Clinton and his Milton Friedman Memorial Economics Team of Cutler, Goolsbee and Liebman, free marketers one and all, wouldn't be caught dead giving ANY thought to regulation.

For my money Clinton is the lesser of two evils by a wide margin. The Obama candidacy has turned out to be significantly more DLC than the Clinton candidacy and given his promise to compromise with Republicans, the chance of regulatory reform in an Obama administration would be non-existent. At least with Clinton there's a reasoable expectation, especially with Democrats in control of Congress. Leading to another question. What would a Bill Clinton presidency have looked like without Republicans controlling Congress for 3/4s of his time in office?

Pointless debate aside it sould be recognized that in the seven plus years since Clinton's term ended the need for regulation has become obvious to all but dedicated free marketers. There's no reason to expect a Hillary Clinton Presidency would follow the Bill Clinton Presidency in lockstep. Times and circumstances have changed.

The increasing entropy of financial institutions and markets has led to much of the current problems. I doubt that regulation (a form of neg-entropy) or protection of the mortgagee will have much impact overall.

Entropy is the decrease in differentiation in a system. It leads ultimately to total immobility and to some degree it is inevitable. It might be irreversible. When social systems reach maximum entropy they are usually destroyed (by revolution, war, depression etc.) and replaced with new, differentiated systems which, in turn, repeat the entropy process.

We had different institutions to lend for mortgages, to be banks, to market stocks, to lend money, to provide insurance. Each of these systems located its function both in the flow of money and geographically. It was easier to manage and maintain balance (regulate) both governmentally and economically. Gradually institution got into everyone else's game and it became impossible to manage whose money was where and, perhaps more importantly, with whom one was dealing. In effect no one person could grasp what was going on with ones own nor anyone else's money. Who were we actually dealing with? To whom do I go to when I need to rectify something? A minion in India over whom I have no direct influence? Fixing this will be like trying to cool a room with many glasses of ice water. Re-differentiation might be important. The free market can accelerate entropy, eventually causing its own eventual state of immobility. Oddly, government or regulation can provide negative entropy (though just as subject to its own entropy, I hasten to add; no system is exempt) and should be welcomed by anyone desiring a working economy. To ignore this phenomenon would be like attaching your exhaust to your carburetor, you will lurch ahead for awhile then come to a halt.

All that she wants to do is pick out pockets empty. She's a SOCIALIST.......

Trouble is Hillary is getting her skirts dirty. Then let's not forget Ms. Commodity trader with none of those annoying margin calls. I read a bit today about Fannie and Freddie and how Bill C is up to his neck in that debacle. Well they're all guilty, but for gods sake, George Bush was supposed to be a Conservative Republican, what got into him?

but no one covered it, does it still exist? Surprisingly, yes!:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

And yes, "blank", Obama gave a speech about it last week: YouTube-it, yourself, if you're not too busy..

The real core of the problem, as Krugman and others have tirelessly pointed out, has been the rise of an essentially unregulated "shadow banking system" of hedge funds and investment banks that used borrowed money to bet without restraint wherever they saw the chance to turn a profit.

From my armchair investor perspective, it's all about the spread (e.g. difference between cost to borrow and return on investment). And Greenspan is the dude that flooded our monetary system with lots of cheap money that got leveraged into mortgage and other derivative products. Huge profits were made, for awhile. If borrowed money is expensive, then more care is going to be taken. Now that money is getting cheaper again, everything is going to be just fine, right?

What does Obama bring? "Trust me to hope the hopeful hope, onward to the beige future!"