Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
3 Comments
chicchoreasays...Cogent.
blankfistsays...Ahem.
NetRunnersays...@blankfist, since you seem to want my thoughts on this (but for some reason, wanted to edit the comment to look like you were just clearing your throat), I'll give you my rebuttal.
I'll take his three points in reverse order.
#3 about regulatory uncertainty is one of these universal conservative economic fantasies. There's no evidence that this really has any kind of macroeconomic effect. Certainly the usual conservative and business advocacy groups always get a laundry list of businessmen to all line up and say how they won't be able to function if they have to pay compensation to workers injured on the job, have to check to see if the products they produce are poisonous or otherwise unsafe, can't dump toxic chemicals into lakes and rivers, can't use slave labor, etc, etc. They always fight against efforts to stop them from being able to leverage negative market externalities for extra profit.
#2 The Yahoo Finance link itself debunks this, because what Schiff says is a flat-out lie. Here's what that link says:
Liberal critics also question whether the bill addresses "Too Big to Fail", but they're talking about limits on the overall size of banks.
#1 I've covered this fantasy of Schiff's about the nature of the crisis before. Here are two quick points I always make, which you never respond to: low interest rates don't create moral hazard, and Fannie and Freddie weren't even remotely the biggest players in the subprime mortgage-backed security space, much less the chief source of moral hazard.
All the moral hazard was created by the financial industry thinking it had found a way to insulate itself from the risks involved in bad mortgages using CDO's and CDS's -- without relying on government backing of any kind.
I'm happy to go into much more depth on #1 if you like, but you've never really demonstrated that you have any interest in listening to what I have to say on the topic with anything like an open mind.
Oh, and liberals agree that this bill doesn't really do enough in addressing the underlying problems that led to the crisis (the real ones). Basically, they say there's not enough rating agency reform, no leverage caps on investment banks, no Glass-Steagall separation of traditional and investment banks, no commitment to break up banks that grow beyond a certain size, etc.
In fact, from what I've read, the strongest part of this bill is exactly the part Schiff lied about -- it should prevent future Congresses from being forced to do taxpayer-funded bailouts. Instead, it'll be like the standard FDIC process for failed banks, only scaled up to deal with corporations of this size and complexity. Under that process, the bank shareholders, owners, and management get wiped out and fired, but the bank's creditors and depositors are made whole. The bank fails, but it doesn't take a huge chunk of the economy with it when it goes.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.