Break up the Big Banks is a populist call coming from the base of both sides of the political spectrum and where the elites favor concentration because it favors them. Dodd-Frank was an attempt to reign in finance after the disaster of 2008 and Glass-Steagall was a similar attempt after the Crash of 1929. The later lasted for fifty years before it began to break down as financial institutions explored means of circumventing its restrictions. Today's bank lobby has an expertise developed over the decades that is sure to gut Congress's two thousand page attempt to regain financial control in a few short years. Its because of the bill's complexity which gives the opportunity for Banker's to game it. It's a complexity which comes from the many committees and subcommittees that feed off the Bank lobby's largess and is the primary reason we need term limits.
The posters on the The Atlantic's article shows protesters supporting Massachusetts' Senator Elizabeth who ironically is part of the problem because of her elite conceit that solutions require micro managing. Its what provides the devilish details so adored by lobbyist. This blog has called for a simple law for to big to fail banks which is that no financial institution can control more assets that 1% of the nation's GDP and ones finding themselves above that level need to split apart into smaller independent units that comply. Its a law that allows failure a chance to cull out the poor performers and restrains all actors so that they act prudently rather than game a system where their bonus is assured no matter who loses. Unfortunately the prospect of rendering a juicy committee seat, where bank lobbyist shower funds on a one's reelection campaign, irrelevant makes such a logical solution currently impossible. Maybe the Federal Reserve could require it?
No comments:
Post a Comment