Senator Warren rightly addresses contradictions in the assertions of critics who oppose regulations she favors. Demonstrating inconsistencies in the statements of an opponent is a fair method of debate and is a powerful way to make a point.

That style crosses the line, however, when the Senator uses tactics that can intimidate and effectively silence those with whom she disagrees. Senator Warren asked the SEC to provide her staff "with a briefing on how the SEC interprets…

A regulatory mindset that regards the failure in an innovation as an indicator of a legal violation ultimately will discourage the very innovations that Comptroller Curry praises, since restrictions and punishment tend not to engender creativity. It is inevitable that bank regulators are cautious. Even so, a regulator's inclination to say "no" to innovation by punishing failed innovation is likely to give the less regulated a strong competitive advantage.

The "do-no-harm" approach seems applicable to a great deal of financial regulation.

Until the CFTC adopts that approach, it will be burdened by heavily politicized rule proposals in search of nonexistent problems. For example, the CFTC would be wise to do no harm when regulating position limits on energy. Any cost-benefit analysis of that proposal likely would yield a very high price; common sense indicates that the power of sovereign nations to pump or withhold oil far outweighs…

The SEC's proposal contains a number of aspects that should give pause to derivatives market participants.

First, the SEC's use of the notional amounts of derivatives as a way to measure risk is inherently flawed. No one would accept the idea that investing $1,000 severally in U.S. government securities, junk bonds, S&P 100 stocks, gold and energy would entail comparable risks. The fact that a risk is taken with derivatives does not magically create parity. The risk originates…