No. He just lets markets go "free". The way they were back in the 1950's....when financial markets and the USA prospered. Think of the money we would save by getting rid of all of those bureaucrats at the SEC. I mean, wow, Mary Shapiro was only the tip of the iceberg. What a dumb c*nt she was.
You feel comfortable with no regulator at all? As much as I feel FINRA has gone way to far, and in many cases the SEC, I'd rather have them then not have them.
A completely unregulated market is one where no honest trader trades at all because of the rampant insider trading - all efforts will be focused on bribing people for "tips". US prospered in the 1950s because 2 of the main competitors, Japan and Germany were destroyed in the war...
1245, d08 - While I somewhat agree with you both, insider trading can really be monitored and controlled by the EXCHANGES....using technology. We don't really need lame, expensive government agencies to do that. All we need is a small agency that tells the exchanges what to do. For instance, the CME needs to control all of the spoofing in the E-mini futures markets. Easily done thru technology. Why aren't they doing it ? Answer: they are afraid they'll lose money. But if a regulatory authority said "You must do this...or go out of business".... then it's a whole, new ball game.
You only catch the dumbest of insider traders that way. Most insider trading instances are not standard procedure, hard to automate. They already use tech to filter out suspicious trades and I'm sure their code is pretty good at this point.