The main part of the argument is also very misleading. I imagine that after Dunkirk was evacuated that Warren and Salmon would be complaining that not all opportunities to save British ammunition were exhausted, at huge cost to the taxpayers.

The flip side of these objections is that almost every member of the fed is responsible for the soundness of the banks, and that of the general economy, but has no specific obligation to consumers. The situation is hardly balanced, and simply adding a voice of moderation (as opposed to a consumer advocate) to this chorus will achieve very little.

They did it because they don’t like Warren and like the Megan Mcardle’s will do anything to make themselves noticed so the other haters will come forward.

I think as watchdog agency for consumers, someone who can understand the consumer side is essential. Don’t give me any crap that a wall street insider gives a whiff about the ordinary consumer or even can pretend to think like joe public…

Ms. Warren has a good grasp of what she should… consumer interests! She also has proven she can hold her own discussing important financial matters with the banks, financial institutions, wallstreeters and the government. The rest of her staff will be the experts that can provide any expertise she might need to be more ‘balanced’. She isn’t going to be a lord and master Eric_H.

What happens if (or should I say when) Elizabeth Warren’s CFPB decides that 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with no prepayment penalties are “best” but the safety and soundness regulators decide that they have at most a very limited place in bank balance sheets? That calls for some mediation and a balanced view of the issues.