So you think that, for instance, cherry-picking something specific you don't like and trying to make it a general counterargument to something many people do like, is a good idea?
I suspect many people who want to "simply re-regulate financial institutions the way [the US] did during the period from the 1930s through the 1990s" are not fully aware of what those regulations entailed, or why they were repealed. The example I cited might be a motivating factor for such people to get more informed before they decide what they "like". I would further add that counting "like"s is probably not the best way to figure out how to reduce systematic risk in the financial system.
"are not fully aware of what those regulations entailed, or why they were repealed. "
But they are fully aware that the system worked pretty well, and was pretty stable, for decades, although it wasn't quite as profitable for the financial industry.
Although RyanMcGreal didn't refer specifically to Glass-Steagall, it's a good bet that "re-regulating" (i.e. re-introducing measures from that law) might be a bad idea in several cases, Regulation Q being one of them.
Megan McArdle is a terrible journalist. I would suggest double-checking all of her claims.
For instance, she recently wrote that wealth inequality was probably worse in the 90s than it is now. In fact, it's now much worse than it was then. She didn't bother to check her own assumption.
Unfortunately, long experience has shown me that it's not worth trusting McArdle unless you have all of her sources right out in front of you; I believe the polite way to put it is that she "massages the facts" a bit :)
