A few weeks ago Dodd's Senate banking committee held hearings on the need for regulation of the financial industry. Present were 10 regulators each from one of 10 different regulatory bodies. Dodd commented: "the picture of 10 people was the picture of the problem."

So it seems that we have too many regulators, none of whom were able to individually or collectively deal with the recent financial debacle. Now lawmakers are trying to figure out what to do and how to do it. Obviously there will be fierce power struggles among the existing agencies. Hal Scott, professor at Harvard University said: "its grown topsy turvy since the civil war driven by a reaction of events -- the turf was where industry always wants its own regulator that they can be more comfortable with."

Former Federal Reserve chair and current presidential adviser Paul Volcker says that the global economy may be deteriorating even more precipitously than it did during the Great Depression.

"I don't remember any time, maybe even in the Great Depression, when things went down quite so fast, quite so uniformly around the world," he said at a Columbia University luncheon. He also dismissed the notion that the financial innovation of the past decade has had any positive results: "There is little correlation between sophistication of a banking system and productivity growth."

A survey of 800 registered voters conducted by Public Strategies found that 63% of Americans are "much more concerned" with the debate on executive compensation than they were a year ago and 33% are "somewhat more concerned."

Some 80% have an unfavorable opinion of the chief executives of big banks. What's amazing to me is that 20% don't! 89% want to see some sort of clawback provision to allow companies to recoup funds paid to executives whose firms later collapsed.

This would seem to provide Congress with all the mandate it needs to implement very stringent pay controls on the companies participating in the bailout. If the taxpayers are being asked to provide more than $700 billion to the banks and they want executive pay controls to be part of that, then what's the question? Any bank that doesn't need the money that badly is free to reject it. It's a win-win!

Any rational argument against imposing restrictions on executive pay went out the window when the bailout bill was passed.

Once again, the ever-incisive Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf, an economist, identifies with laser-accuracy what ills the current market. The problem, Wolf argues, is not a lack of solvency but a lack of liquidity (i.e. 'panic').

Wolf does not deny that there have been bad loans (there have been) or that no companies will go out of business (some will). But the circumstance that froze credit markets, that caused quality corporate bonds to fail to price, and that leads to 100-point spreads between the LIBOR rate (what banks charge each other) and the ECB's benchmark interest rate, is rooted more in a lack of confidence, than a lack of sound economic fundamentals or a lack of resources.

A lack of liquidity

And a lack of liquidity or 'panic' is something that central bankers can address. With the above in mind, the U.S. Federal Reserve's plan, in consultation with the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Swiss National Bank, and the Bank of Canada, to inject $40 billion via auctions into the financial system is appropriate and prudent. (Further, in addition to reciprocal currency arrangements, the companion central banks will take related actions, including the Bank of England's decision to accept a wider range of collateral on 3-month loans).