Jimmy Snyder said:
In that case, your argument is an example of a logical fallacy known as 'slippery slope'. For example someone argues that it is good to drink water and the counterargument is that if you drank eight ounces of water a minute 24/7 you would die of it. You see how the counterargument is more of a way of avoiding the question than discussing it. I see your comments concerning regulation without bound as a similar dodge of the real question of regulation with bound.
This has gone far from the original point, counter point, which was
Point: "Warren wants to regulate the bankers, not seize their assets and nationalize them"
Counter Point: "Regulation without bound can amount to the same thing."
Or in terms of your water example above, with some context matching the regulation/nationalization points:
Point: Drinking water is perfectly safe (made by someone already guzzling a great deal of water)
Counter Point: Well hold on, drinking eight ounces of water a minute 24/7 will kill you.
Given that banking was
already a very heavily regulated industry before Dodd Frank or Sen. Warren, I think pointing out the dangers of extremes is not unwarranted, and not a slippery slope argument.
I used to the phrase "without bound" to quickly show that
somewhere regulation and nationalization are easily seen as equivalent. I could have said that "at some point regulation can ...", and determining that point is complicated and subjective and not that useful. More important was to shake the implied absolute claim that nationalization and regulation and always and everywhere two unrelated things
regardless of the amount of regulation.
Maybe, depending on the regulator. Much, much more likely in my view would be bankers kept healthy and made toadies of regulators and their political masters, i.e. all made one indistinguishable mass, which was my original point.