But why do they focus so intently on medicines and not look at the many products which don't face such stringent controls, be they televisions or computers?
In their view, "Economic theory teaches us that finance is much like medicine. Individuals' optimal investment portfolios differ between individuals relatively little, except in ways that can be readily observed and described based on a small number of individual characteristics."
"These characteristics include risk-preferences, age, industry in which one is employed, and where one lives. On the other hand, optimal financial planning is a complicated computational problem that is at the frontiers of both economic theory and computer science. The vast majority of the well-off seek advice about the allocation of their financial assets, but rarely do so about other life decisions."
The authors know they'll engender dismissive rebukes. There will be those who scoff at the FDA analogy, arguing that the agency is too bureaucratic and impedes innovation. They will ask whether the free market will do things better than regulators and why transparency about the nature of products will get you where you want to go.
Disclosure is simply insufficient and won't stop firms from investing huge resources to develop products that "facilitate gambling and regulatory arbitrage," argue Weyl and Posner, who is the son of Richard Posner, one of America's most influential federal judges and academics.
They admit that there is a tough problem in defining just what is a "financial product" for the purposes of a regulatory review. Should the inventor of the very first CDS have been forced to gain government approval? They say yes.
They also find the frequent criticism of insufficient expertise within regulatory agencies, presumably because they can't attract enough top talent, to be overdrawn. And they deem exaggerated the anticipated complaint that firms won't invest in financial innovation if they fear their products will be stuck in a review process for long periods of time.
"Any proposal to introduce new regulations will be controversial because of legitimate concerns that regulation interferes with the efficient allocation of resources and is vulnerable to capture by interest groups," they conclude.
"In the current, highly polarized political environment, it is easy to predict that many people will regard our proposal as an excessively radical reform, one that is inconsistent with free market traditions in the Unites States. It is therefore important to emphasize that or proposal in large part revives an old regulatory system that served the United States well until it was dismantled in the 1990s."
And, as they note, every state has an insurance agency with the power to regulate financial instruments with insurance-like elements, as is often the case with financial products. At the federal level, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission do have jurisdiction over financial products.
"Our goal is simply to provide them with the right powers and guidance so that they can regulate these products effectively."
Well, they are intrepid. That's why one might respond just as President Obama did Tuesday at his press conference when asked about criticisms leveled his way by Mitt Romney. He dodged the query and referenced Romney's big test that evening in "Super Tuesday's" Republican primaries.
"Good luck," he said.