Simon Johnson, a complicated figure who has made many important contributions to our national conversation on financial regulation, has written a disappointing blog post about Rep. Paul Ryan — I say disappointing because it doesn’t seem to reflect an effort to understand where Rep. Ryan is coming from:

Only in American could self-styled “fiscal conservatives” say that “America is eager for an adult conversation on the threat of debt,” but then decline to discuss the first order problem that has brought us here and threatens us going forward: Dangerous systemic risk brought on by the reckless behavior of big banks. No “fiscal conservatives” showed up for the legislative fight to rein in big banks – none, and now Spencer Bachus (presumptive incoming chair of House Financial Services) says that restrictions on big banks should be further lifted (quoted in the FT today, p.15).

In fairness, it’s not obvious that these issues are as tightly linked as Johnson suggests. I certainly think that dangerous systemic risk is a serious issue, and I’m inclined to support tough regulations designed to ensure that depository institutions are held to tough leverage requirements, etc. But I think it’s perfectly coherent to describe people who back credible plans to reduce public spending as “fiscal conservatives” regardless of their views on financial regulation.