Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Robert Reich: A Short Citizen’s Guide to Reforming Wall Street

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Robert Reich: A Short Citizen’s Guide to Reforming Wall Street

    A Short Citizen’s Guide to Reforming Wall Street

    The real scandal isn’t the Street’s unlawful acts (i.e., Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Goldman Sachs) but legal acts that have reaped the Street a bonanza and nearly sunk the rest of us.

    It’s good we finally have an SEC on which three out of five commissioners are willing to enforce laws already on the books. Hopefully other enforcement agencies (CFTC, FDIC, and the Fed) will follow suit. But we also need to make illegal the recklessness that’s now legal.

    The Dodd bill now being considered in the Senate is a step in the right direction. Yet despite the hype, it’s a very modest step. It leaves out three of the most important things necessary to prevent a repeat of the Wall Street meltdown:

    1. Require that trading of all derivatives be done on open exchanges where parties have to disclose what they’re buying and selling and have enough capital to pay up if their bets go wrong. The exception in the current bill for so-called “unique” derivatives opens up a loophole big enough for bankers to drive their Ferrari’s through.

    2. Resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act in its entirety so commercial banks are separated from investment banks. The current bill doesn’t go nearly far enough. Commercial banks should take deposits and lend money. Investment banks should be limited to the casino we call the stock market, helping companies issue new issues and making bets. Nothing good comes of mixing the two. We learned this after the Great Crash of 1929, and then forgot it in 1999 when Congress allowed financial supermarkets to do both.

    3. Cap the size of big banks at $100 billion in assets. The current bill doesn’t limit the size of banks at all. It creates a process for winding down the operations of any bank that gets into trouble. But if several big banks are threatened, as they were when the housing bubble burst, their failure would pose a risk to the whole financial system, and Congress and the Fed would surely have to bail them out. The only way to ensure no bank is too big to fail is to make sure no bank is too big, period. Nobody has been able to show any scale efficiencies over $100 billion in assets, so that should be the limit.

    Wall Street doesn’t want these three major reforms because they’d cut deeply into profits, and it’s using its formidable lobbying clout with both parties to prevent these reforms from even from surfacing. It’s time for Main Street — Tea Partiers, Coffee partiers, and beer drinkers — to be heard.

  • #2
    Re: Robert Reich: A Short Citizen’s Guide to Reforming Wall Street

    From a tall, non-citizen's perspective I find the obsession with the size of banks kind of perplexing. I accept the fact that there appears to be little or no benefit to size beyond a certain point. But isn't it sufficient to simply deal with the failing and bailing out part rather than the bigness part. In other words if you re-instate glass steagall with a firewall between the public utility function of banking (the boring, useful bits) from the proprietary trading, investment banking etc... isn't that sufficient? The co-mingling of the two is what gave these institutions the power to hold the real economy hostage. (And I mean hostage: GS is a bank holding company. That fact absolutely astounds me still.)

    Seems like gilding the lilly to me.

    What am I not getting here?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Robert Reich: A Short Citizen’s Guide to Reforming Wall Street

      Originally posted by oddlots View Post
      From a tall, non-citizen's perspective I find the obsession with the size of banks kind of perplexing. I accept the fact that there appears to be little or no benefit to size beyond a certain point. But isn't it sufficient to simply deal with the failing and bailing out part rather than the bigness part. In other words if you re-instate glass steagall with a firewall between the public utility function of banking (the boring, useful bits) from the proprietary trading, investment banking etc... isn't that sufficient? The co-mingling of the two is what gave these institutions the power to hold the real economy hostage. (And I mean hostage: GS is a bank holding company. That fact absolutely astounds me still.)

      Seems like gilding the lilly to me.

      What am I not getting here?
      Eerily, from what I recal, Bank of America somehow touches almost 1 out of every TWO people in the US, thru either a mortgage, credit card, brokerage account, etc. That is simply too much concentration of power. Standard Oil was broken for the same reasons. I am a pure capitalist at heart, but oligarchical business that can buy off CONgress and squeeze the avge Joe is not sane business in the least.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Robert Reich: A Short Citizen’s Guide to Reforming Wall Street

        I'm a Paleoconservative, Free-Market (though NOT unregulated!), Ron Paul man.
        I voted for Reagan twice yet I took the "Reverund" Jackson's advice and "stayed out of the Bushes".

        I disagree with Robert Reich most of the time, but on this matter I agree with him completely.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Robert Reich: A Short Citizen’s Guide to Reforming Wall Street

          Ok so you guys agree with Reich, and the observation about B of A's market penetration (cough) is enough to give anyone pause... But let me put it to you this way. Canada's banking environment is dominated by 5 big banks. Should I be worried about this per se? If not, why not?

          If you re-instated Glass-Steagall as Reich suggests B of A would have to divest itself of it's non-core banking assets anyway wouldn't it? Thus you have the shrinkage desired without imposing some sort of arbitrary cap on assets. This would achieve a break-up along the logic of business lines which maps onto the public interest / regulatory differences that matter. A trading firm needs to meet different soundness criteria than an insurance company or a commercial bank. That logic is lost once you impose a necessarily arbitrary number on the assets side.

          Strangely it kind of reminds me of one of the most frustrating aspects of the bail out: the fact that firms benefited directly from the size of their balance sheet and so were rewarded for their recklessness in expanding with government largesse after the crash quite apart from - in fact, in an inverse relationship to - their earnings. Isn't this simply an inversion of this logic rather than it's subversion?

          I think you can do better: in a proper regulatory environment where the business lines are separated size becomes less important and growth could regain its traditional association with successful, sound management.

          So again, what am I not getting?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Robert Reich: A Short Citizen’s Guide to Reforming Wall Street

            interesting takeon TBTF here at business insider

            http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...problem-2010-4

            Comment

            Working...
            X