PR, in the 1980s I worked on a humor piece for an "insider" type Washington newspaper. This was at the height of the first wave of "privatize everything the government does" hysteria. We had an org chart of "USGovCo" -- changing to serve you better, and all that -- catchy private-sectory sounding names for all the departments, etc.
Just to say, this has been a march of folly since at least that time. You can't do a take-off unless it can resonate at at least an "opinion leader" level, if not a mass level... so even doing that piece was in reaction to something that had matured enough that you could point it out in the national discourse.
It's been a matter of "contracting it all out" for some time, to the point where in the last decade (after making the support personnel private sector workers,) we started using mercenaries in our war-fighting.
That's the fast track to national deterioration. The Founding Fathers wrote specifically of the need for a strong federal government...
as an institution in its own right, not beholden to the private sector or any other interest but the public's.
The really radical turn in the "Reagan Revolution" (and all that came after,) is the proposition that your own government is by its nature your enemy, and must be shrunk at every turn (however big or small it is, it's too big, in every instance.)
I say make it function. I think we agree in this. If Wall Street is being regulated, don't have this hodge-podge of regulators with weak power, out of which each bank can pick the one they like the best.
We're at a point where we need simple and stricter rules for our financial sector. It's not the case that they have our interests at heart, or that the sum total of their activity will redound magically to everyone's benefit.
There never was any reason to believe that it
would work out that way, but we told ourselves fairy tales to that effect for 30 years.
Nikolai, you know me, I'm our local "moderate." I always love the idea that collectively we'll identify the problem, we'll get the smartest guys in the room to fix it, they'll be pristine and above corruption, we'll make wise policy, people will see through ad blitzes by the moneyed interests, and we'll reward the policy makers who figure out and fix the abuses.
In other words, I'm a naive pie-in-the-sky moderate.
Like you say, change might have to be painful; you might end up two steps forward with a step back stuck in the middle.
You might have to take the chance of a crippling blow to the financial system to rebalance it. You might even have to undo the work to save the financial sector to establish a different basis of financial activity.
If the latter, however, we do invite global depression. Hey, worse things have happened.
At a certain point, people start feeling like "eff it, let's roll the dice."
I'm thinking we want to stop short of that -- but (see above) -- I might be deluded in holding this opinion.
PFnV