College Policy Debate Forums
November 18, 2017, 04:11:41 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: 2011-12 Reformation of Financial Institutions Topic Paper  (Read 3813 times)
Kathryn Rubino
Newbie
*
Posts: 45


« on: April 25, 2011, 11:23:38 PM »

Attached please find our topic paper on the reformation of financial institutions.  

Thanks to everyone who provided research and/or feedback!

Kathryn

* Reformation of Financial Institutions.docx (83.51 KB - downloaded 839 times.)
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 11:25:56 PM by stables » Logged
gabemurillo
Full Member
***
Posts: 165


« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2011, 07:03:48 PM »

Thanks for putting together this paper, very interesting topic area. I am concerned about the potential for bi-directionality in this topic. I may be missing something but is there some part of either the Dodd-Frank Act or the term "substantially reform financial institutions" that prevents an affirmative from reducing regulations on the financial institutions?

gabe
 

Logged
Kathryn Rubino
Newbie
*
Posts: 45


« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2011, 09:08:42 AM »

The question of bidirectionality is different on this topic than others because the aff, in order to be inherent, is hemmed in by the passage of Dodd-Frank.  That said, reform is the term used in the literature base. My concern with alternatives like "increase regulations" is that it may not capture more comprehensive changes supported by the literature such as banning rating agencies and creating a fed agency to do ratings.  And I think good aff ground requires they have the flexibility to repeal at least some sections of Dodd Frank. Given the current regulatory environment I don't think that is too much aff ground particularly if the resolution were to limit the sort of financial institution affirmatives could reform.

-Kathryn
Logged
Adri
Full Member
***
Posts: 125


« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2011, 11:52:17 AM »

Quote
The question of bidirectionality is different on this topic than others because the aff, in order to be inherent, is hemmed in by the passage of Dodd-Frank.

Can you clarify this? What does it mean that the aff is "hemmed in by the passage of Dodd-Frank"?

There was a similar line in the controversy paper about the aff being "bound by the status quo passage..." [from page 5 of the paper] -

Quote
While the general trend in debate over the last few years has been to greatly restrict the perceived size of the Affirmative, I believe this isnít an issue on this particular topic primarily because of the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010.  This legislation is the centerpiece of the Obama administrationís response to the financial crisis, and while this paper will discuss its shortfalls in the section of potential affirmative areas, any broadly worded topic is bound by the status quo passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in what it can do. 

This may just be a question of my lack of familiarity with the complete contents of the Dodd-Frank Act, but I am not clear on what potential limit this sets on the aff, particularly in terms of bidirectionality, if the author(s) think repealing parts of the DFA should be topical...

Thanks,
Adrienne
Logged
Kathryn Rubino
Newbie
*
Posts: 45


« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2011, 10:55:54 PM »

I think an "increase regulations" or "regulatory reform" wording fits within the topic paper and is frankly the wording I worked with the first month I worked on the paper.  "Reform" may present some issues with its lack of precision, and as I said I began this process with an eye on "increasing regulation" as the term I wanted to use.  But the more I researched, the more I saw the term "reform" used by the media, experts and policymakers to describe the work being done in this area.  From the perspective of a controversy paper I opted for "reform" to reflect this and I'm sure refining will be done to prevent the spirit of "reform" as it is intended by these people from being obscured.  I don't think that is somehow 'unfaithful' to the spirit of the paper.  I liked the word reform because it implied changing regulations for a purpose rather then sort of minor regulatory changes that may make the system more efficient but do not try to fundamentally change the institution.  I figured it at least had a shot of being more limiting then the word substantially Smiley  However, these are all wording questions that do not change the controversy that the paper discusses.
 
But however we resolve these wording issues, I do think that it highlights a grave problem if we cannot have academic debates on the salient issues that Congress and agency regulators are talking about right now because we are afraid that we cannot use the terminology of policymakers in the field because it doesn't work for us for us from a "debate" perspective.

To answer the question "What affs can't you run?" the answer is everything DFA did do, I think there is good debate to be had about whether the DFA approach was the correct one or even long term a good idea but it did take a lot of main stream ideas for reform that were circulating in early 09 and try to put them in to law.  For example, if you did a lexis search for financial reform it will probably pull up a bunch of hits for CDO (collateral debt obligations) or CDS (credit default swap) reform but DFA changed who can sell them, what has to be disclosed about them and well a bunch of other things which is why I didn't include it in my paper.  This is what I mean when I say the aff is hemmed in by DFA, there is a big chunk of reforms the aff cannot do because DFA did them and that is probably why I don't worry about the issue of bidirectionality as much as I would on another topic.

-Kathryn
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!