All those points could just as well explain how corporations have adapted to an otherwise consistently enforced set of oversight mechanisms and policies.
I don't disagree that the government has stepped back in many ways, but part of the problem (such as it is) is that the enforcement people ostensibly want would require far more dynamism from regulators, which is not something the American system is tuned for, especially at the federal level. Moreover, given the current political factionalism, we're increasingly less likely to see the necessary legislative dynamism. And finally, there's a creeping judicial activism that is beginning to upturn decades of administrative agency law, throwing a wrench into everything but on balance reducing agency flexibility even more. Just look at what happened to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
I think the only practical way forward is to rely on individual states, permitting states like New York and California to extend their roles. But that, too, would require some acquiescence from all three branches of the Federal government to even approach the kinds of changes people seem to expect to see. Contemporary politics similarly disfavors that approach; in some ways even more vehemently--conservatives know that they would lose their obstructive powers, while liberals tend to only accept federal-level policies as legitimate and efficacious. For example, take the Federal Arbitration Act--conservatives would fight repeal tooth & nail, while liberals can't even contemplate the thought, preoccupied as they are with enacting positive regulations federally.
I don't disagree that the government has stepped back in many ways, but part of the problem (such as it is) is that the enforcement people ostensibly want would require far more dynamism from regulators, which is not something the American system is tuned for, especially at the federal level. Moreover, given the current political factionalism, we're increasingly less likely to see the necessary legislative dynamism. And finally, there's a creeping judicial activism that is beginning to upturn decades of administrative agency law, throwing a wrench into everything but on balance reducing agency flexibility even more. Just look at what happened to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
I think the only practical way forward is to rely on individual states, permitting states like New York and California to extend their roles. But that, too, would require some acquiescence from all three branches of the Federal government to even approach the kinds of changes people seem to expect to see. Contemporary politics similarly disfavors that approach; in some ways even more vehemently--conservatives know that they would lose their obstructive powers, while liberals tend to only accept federal-level policies as legitimate and efficacious. For example, take the Federal Arbitration Act--conservatives would fight repeal tooth & nail, while liberals can't even contemplate the thought, preoccupied as they are with enacting positive regulations federally.