Reinstating Glass-Steagall or imposing a strong Volcker Rule would
have been part of that, because it would have removed the threat that
the federal government or the FDIC would ever again have to worry about
what sorts of loony gambling schemes these new supermarket firms are
getting themselves into. Obama also could also have helped reverse the
damage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act by forcing derivatives
to be traded on simple, regulated exchanges. FDR did exactly the same
thing with stocks and commodities after the Depression, but Obama passed
on doing it with derivatives, again allowing his own party's
derivatives reform proposals in Dodd-Frank to be severely gutted from
within.
Finally, Obama had a chance to physically reduce the size of
Too-Big-To-Fail companies by supporting the Brown-Kaufman amendment to
Dodd-Frank, which would have forced big banks to cap deposits and
liabilities to under 10% of GDP. He didn't support that amendment and it
died.
The sum total of all of this is that Obama didn't really do anything
to alleviate the dangers of Too-Big-To-Fail. If anything, we now live in
a world that is more concentrated and dangerous than it was before
2008. TBTF companies like Chase and Wells Fargo and Bank of America are
even bigger and less-able-to-fail-ier than they were when he took
office. This is why Obama's answer to our interview question is so
disappointing. If I'm understanding the president correctly, he
basically says he doesn't think Glass-Steagall should be re-instated,
and beyond that, he just thinks Wall Street needs to self-regulate
better.
The only hope we really have to fix many of these problems is to do
just that, and we will need the chief executive's help there. But
President Obama apparently still isn't willing to take that step, which
is really too bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.