Comments on: Paul Volcker Prevails

By: H. Mazhar

H. Mazhar — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:00:13 +0000

Banks, auto companies, IT companies, etc…infact ALL large companies are a threat to long term survival of the human race. The positives are innovations? ease in life style? which, in most cases we dont even need. The whole world needs to slow down. This rapid “progress” is attractive to certain countries who have enjoyed its fruits in the last 100 years but pause and think what will happen when countries like China, India and Brazil SUCK up the worlds resources in unprecendented speed and create even larger banks, conglomerates…

The catalyst of these heated economies is GREED and the tool is LOANS. If all can learn to live within their means and take loans only in case of emergency, we will all be much better off. What is the use of a house that is really owned by a bank whose workings, strengths, vulnerabilities i am not aware of? why love some ‘thing’ that i dont really own?

All the pundits of finance look for fame ‘today’ but has any one of them really left a positive legacy? They have been proven wrong time and again by the repeated crashing of the financial systems.

With the advances in communication channels, the economies are more and more inter-locked, companies are getting more and more bigger, loan sizes are increasing, and so is poverty.

The crashes are getting bigger and occurring closer together……and the losers are ALL of the human race with NO winners.

By: racetoinfinity

racetoinfinity — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:02:23 +0000

It’s been a week, and not a peep about this from Obama or anyone else in the administration except for Elizabeth Warren. And nothing about this mentioned in the State of the Union speech, which was safe, political, and as far as the Big Banks go, only included a slap on the wrist in the form of taxes on bonuses. I have very little faith that Obama will confront the big banks. In my estimation, he remains a neoliberal corporatist, who will let the Banksters continue on their casino course, which will almost surely lead to another even worse recession.

By: Bayard

Bayard — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 01:36:38 +0000

Amen. The time is right to reinvoke Glass-Steagall. What Republicans can oppose it? That single act would seriously change the course of big finance. Obviously more things will be necessary, like removing all government guarantee programs and legislatively banning bailouts of TBTF firms (and all others). The government can start by using their 37% ownership of CITI to deny its executives bonuses and require that the capital be retained and lent.

By: danny

danny — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:03:27 +0000

Very suspicious timing for these proposals if you take into consideration the supreme court decision to unlimit lobbying laws and the Masachusets Senate vote.

I think this might be an administration ploy to build support for Obama whilst ensuring his bankng reform proposals fail.

By: J

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:18:37 +0000

Prof:

The president says that proprietary trading must be curtailed, could you tell me which prop desk brought down or nearly brought down any banking institution.

Dude, you’re supporting people who are fighting the wrong war.

There was not one prop desk that risked bringing down any of these banks.

Is it the water in Cambridge that causes mental dislocation?

By: NE Wenglin

NE Wenglin — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:28:56 +0000

In your commentary: ‘Paul Volcker Picks Up A Bat’ you note Volcker’s position for restoration of the Glass-Steagall principal. It is the only sane way of returning banking to purposeful societal function. Current practices stand banking on its head, both commercial and investment, by reducing liquidity. In effect fluidity is masquerading as, and being mistaken for, liquidity. The fundamental breakdown is systemic failure to move money to the productive users, the banks’ customers. Commercial banking is a simple business: enabling commerce by moving money; its ‘commodity’. There is no legitimate place for proprietary use of holdings, not for trading or anything else, because a bank should not have excess funds: such a condition indicates its lending rates are too high. Investment banks could take house positions when they were partnerships, but only as a limited adjunct to their business lines: capital formation and financial market making. Else they would have merely amounted to investment clubs. But for investment bankers to trade proprietarily as at recent scaled up levels is illegitimate when they are in public corporations, thus employed at the service of their shareholders, and then reward themselves with bonuses as if they where still partners in a private firm. Banks must be chartered and should be held to their obligations. Volcker is dead on: commercial banking is boring, provides limited returns but a regular stream of them over time and is inherently stable. Reseparating the investment and finance functions from depository institutions would immediately eliminate the tempting pools of money that have been diverted to such tragic effect by the supermarket banks. Reconstituted Glass-Steagall rules by themselves should diminish bank size even without specified limits.

By: Tom Slobko

Tom Slobko — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:04:14 +0000

It is wonderful that President Obama has seen the light here. But does anyone think that he has a chance of implementing anything now? How many Republicans will back anything he proposes, let alone what they will surely characterize as government meddling in our banking system?

Thanks to Simon and James for fighting the good fight for over a year now. It is so sad that it has all come to naught. I shudder to think of the consequences on our economy and our republic.

cheers,

tas

By: paul moessinger

paul moessinger — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:15:07 +0000

Now the Tea Baggers will have to put up or shut up. This is what they have been badgering us about for months-to do something about the big banks. But I’ll bet all you will hear is that this isn’t good enough or other “reasons” to oppose Obama because the big money Republicans behind their movement don’t want anything to do with real reform.

By: 3-D

3-D — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:19:12 +0000

Yeah. Obama’s the first president to ever lie. Ever. And he could never carry out on something he says. It’s unpossible!

By: LAS

LAS — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:21:37 +0000

The trouble with Obama is that he’s been acting like a senator instead of a president. He’s always willing to trade and compromise much too soon in the process. What he’s really got to do is be an active advocate of reform. Hold back the compromise for the last minute save; spend most of the game fighting hard for the needed reforms.

By: LAS

LAS — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:12:08 +0000

FEWER bankers to lamp post, please. Lamp posts light the way. Bankers darken it.

By: ECON

ECON — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:04:23 +0000

All so true. It is amazing to this Canadian of the lack of appreciation by most Americans of what is truly at issue over the last 20 years. We in Canada have regressed into the same apathetic “change the channel” irrational vacancy especially over the last 4 years of Harper regime.

By: JeffS

JeffS — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:49:40 +0000

I think I’m the second person to request a clarification of this passage:

“Push every Republican to take a public stand on this question, and you will be amazed at what you hear (if they stick to what they have been saying behind closed doors on Capitol Hill.)”

What are they saying behind closed doors? That they’d support such reform? Battle against it to the death, even if they think it’s a good idea?

By: Bradman

Bradman — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:43:22 +0000

Very well stated. Since most Americans today crave distraction over knowledge, ignorance and apathy are the sad byproduct.

By: CastleBravo

CastleBravo — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:19:08 +0000

Obama is now officially Herbert Hoover.