Go back
Dallas Fed head vs. the White House

Dallas Fed head vs. the White House

Debates

zeeblebot

silicon valley

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
101289
Clock
09 Jun 10
Vote Up
Vote Down

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-johnson/richard-fisher-senior-fed_b_602386.html


Simon Johnson

MIT Professor and co-author of 13 Bankers
Posted: June 6, 2010 09:35 PM

Richard Fisher, Senior Fed Official: White House Is Dead Wrong

Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Fed, has long been a proponent of serious financial sector reform. As a former commercial banker, he sees quite clearly that the legislation now headed into "reconciliation" between House and Senate versions amounts to very little. He also knows that pounding away repeatedly on this theme is the best way to influence his colleagues within the Fed and across the policy community more broadly.

He is now taking his game to a new, higher level. Couched in the diplomatic language of senior officials, his speech on June 3 to the SW Graduate School of Banking was both a carefully calibrated assault on the administration's general "softly, softly" approach to the big banks and a direct refutation of arguments put forward by Larry Summers in particular.

As the title of Mr. Fisher's speech implies, if the legislation is not real financial reform (and it is not, according to him), then our current policy trajectory amounts to facilitating further rounds of financial dementia.

As a statement of our true problems -- dismissing the red herrings and focusing on the core issues -- Mr. Fisher's speech is a succinct classic. Cutting to the chase:

....

kmax87
Republicant Retiree

Blade Runner

Joined
09 Oct 04
Moves
107130
Clock
09 Jun 10
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zeeblebot
........ Mr. Fisher's speech is a succinct classic...
Can you explain exactly what his refutation of the - systemic collapse- looks like TBTF 'hollow argument' means?

As the argument goes, breaking up big banks may be necessary but is possibly not sufficient—policymakers still must grapple with the possibility of many smaller banks getting into trouble at the same time, causing a “systemic” problem.

I consider this argument hollow for a few reasons.

First, even if this possibility turned out to be true, the threat of a loss from more isolated difficulties would mean creditors could reasonably expect losses in certain circumstances—a situation unlike TBTF.(to big to fail)


http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2010/fs100603.cfm

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.