It's already in the water. What do we need to do to regulate banks so they don't take on excessive risk that threatens the entire economy and requires government intervention to, ironically, save capitalism?
I remember when they passed Dodd-Frank and there were lots of lawmakers saying "watch out, in a few years you'll see a lot of folks saying we don't really need to regulate banks and that these laws are holding back our economy." Then we got exactly that. Those prognosticators were right.
How about a requirement that state-chartered banks can only process transactions within that state? This would certainly limit the size of banks, and the scope of bank failure fallout to a specific region.
I know nothing about any of this.
@wildgrass said - I know nothing about any of this.
---------------------------------------------
Neither do I, Captain. <smile>
And actually, it was Barney Frank himself that worked to repeal the Dodd-Frank act. And, Barney served as chairman
of the House Financial Services Committee and was in charge when Fannie Mae went belly-up.
Barney Frank Pushed to Ease Financial Regulations After Joining Signature Bank Board
WASHINGTON—Former Rep. Barney Frank co-sponsored the law that tightened banking regulations after the financial crisis, but since leaving office he has been working the other side of the street—as a board member of Signature Bank, which regulators shut down Sunday.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/barney-frank-pushed-to-ease-financial-regulations-after-joining-signature-bank-board-e5c8819c
@wildgrass saidBank CEOs and board members must be legally and financially liable. The must face prison and heavy fines that are used to pay back citizens.
What do we need to do to regulate banks so they don't take on excessive risk that threatens the entire economy
In 2008 no one went to prison; they instead got bailouts, which is why they didn't learn their lesson and here we are again.
@vivify saidSure, but the legal wranglings and forensic accounting to find Cayman Island routing numbers would happen way too late for rescuing wrecked economies.
Bank CEOs and board members must be legally and financially liable. The must face prison and heavy fines that are used to pay back citizens.
In 2008 no one went to prison; they instead got bailouts, which is why they didn't learn their lesson and here we are again.
@vivify saidYou have a good point, wish I knew more, this development is, like came out of the blue, even the smart guys are saying. 'what in the world?'
Bank CEOs and board members must be legally and financially liable. The must face prison and heavy fines that are used to pay back citizens.
In 2008 no one went to prison; they instead got bailouts, which is why they didn't learn their lesson and here we are again.
But anyway, there ARE laws about responsibility of a board member......and this: If they were not responsible, why does there exist umbrella insurance for a board in the event of a claim ?
@wildgrass saidThe idea is simple and pragmatic. Raise reserve requirements for banks. You may be wondering why something so simple and effective has not been implemented after all of this time, right?
It's already in the water. What do we need to do to regulate banks so they don't take on excessive risk that threatens the entire economy and requires government intervention to, ironically, save capitalism?
I remember when they passed Dodd-Frank and there were lots of lawmakers saying "watch out, in a few years you'll see a lot of folks saying we don't really need to re ...[text shortened]... ks, and the scope of bank failure fallout to a specific region.
I know nothing about any of this.
Banks are a powerful lobby and they don't like reserve restraints. That limits the amount of profits banks can make. But it also makes banks more likely to fail when their bets don't pan out. The latter is clearly more important than the former. This amounts to a corrupt banking lobby influencing lawmakers.
Why do you think all of the big banks get bailed out and the small banks are allowed to fail and be swallowed up by the big banks? My fascist government wants to pick who can and cannot swallow them up as well. It is a rigged game. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. That is fascism.
@wildgrass saidHow about just return the legislation which Trump reversed. Dodd-Frank was designed to prevent just such a collapse as SVB, but Trump rendered it toothless.
It's already in the water. What do we need to do to regulate banks so they don't take on excessive risk that threatens the entire economy and requires government intervention to, ironically, save capitalism?
I remember when they passed Dodd-Frank and there were lots of lawmakers saying "watch out, in a few years you'll see a lot of folks saying we don't really need to re ...[text shortened]... ks, and the scope of bank failure fallout to a specific region.
I know nothing about any of this.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/14/politics/facts-on-trump-2018-banking-deregulation