83,357
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
{{smallcaps|What is in}} a name? | {{smallcaps|What is in}} a name? | ||
This may be to draw a long bow, but you could, and the JC does, make the case that over-emphasising ''formal' bilaterality, and ignoring ''substantive'' asymmetry, has led the regulatory dance into the wrong corner of the dancefloor. | This may be to draw a long bow, but you could, and the JC does, make the case that over-emphasising ''formal'' bilaterality, and ignoring ''substantive'' asymmetry, has led the regulatory dance into the wrong corner of the dancefloor. | ||
The logic is this: this is a contract of equals. Each poses an equal, but offsetting, risk to the other. Therefore credit concern cuts both ways, so any regulatory impositions should — ''must'' — also apply both ways. | The logic is this: this is a contract of equals. Each poses an equal, but offsetting, risk to the other. Therefore credit concern cuts both ways, so any regulatory impositions should — ''must'' — also apply both ways. |