http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB126080843481590571-lMyQjAxMDI5NjEwNTgxMDU4Wj.html
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/banks-real-reform-and-pitchforks/?emc=eta1
As a follow up to our most recent post, we want to add that the "Bank CEOs" yesterday pledged to push for re-regulation (WSJ attached) while they acknowledged to President Obama that their behavior was, at minimum, disingenuous and probably outright deceitful. How? The CEOs agreed that the work of their lobbyists to weaken any new financial rules was not consistent with their public support for new stronger regulations. This practice was made especially more onerous when one realizes that the lobbying involved was being paid for by the very same public that stood to be protected by the new regulations - so paying back TARP money was not just about freeing up executive pay, it was also about lobbying against the public interest with public money!
As many people have said throughout the worldwide financial crisis, any institution that is deemed "too big to fail" is: TOO BIG!
As Lawrence Summers said over the weekend, a $300 million banking industry lobbying push to "gut" financial market re-regulation is "frankly a bit rich."
Of course, the next question is how likely is the prospect of significant regulation of the banking industry from Washington? The House passed a banking regulation bill last week, and the Senate is working on its own version. The NY Times "Room for Debate" forum (attached) presents us with some opinions on the odds of significant regulation. See especially Edward Harrison who says we are unlikely to see substantive changes that will prevent another crisis in the financial arena. That sums it up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have given up on our government. It does not matter who is in power, the leaders always play the politics game engendering poor results. Look at government stuff through power dynamics, not what is best for America.
ReplyDeleteJosh: If you think of government as the "collective will" of the group being governed, then you define the result as how does the self-interest of each politician get advanced by voting in favor of, for example, "Health Care"? My position, in that case, is that I don't care what's in that bill as long as it includes non-exclusion for those with prior illnesses and inclusion for those who would normally be dropped from coverage for costing the insurers too much. Seeing things that way is just pragmatic.
ReplyDelete