Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Our Members

Many thanks to Michael Boyd and Francia R Stowell some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

Back to the woodshed for bankers

From Davos to D.C., the politicians and bankers are getting the message. It's time to re-regulate our financial systems, heeding the advice of Paul Volcker.
Paul Volcker, left, has got Obama's ear again

Paul Volcker, left, has got Obama's ear again White House

Suddenly, the agenda has changed.

Focus has shifted from discussion about stalled health-care and cap-and-trade legislation to fundamental issues about the country's — and, for that matter, other countries' — longterm economic and financial stability. We have not had this discussion since the 1930s, when independent commissions' recommendations led to such measures as the Glass-Steagall Act, separating commercial from investment banking.

We probably should have begun the dialogue more seriously in 2009. Entering 2010, smaller banks continue to fail, small business can't get financing, public resentment is building about the greed and insensitivity of big-bank managers whose reckless risk-taking caused the present distress, and our domestic unemployment rate seems likely to remain at or near an official 10 percent through most of the year. A recent walk around Seattle neighborhoods revealed empty spaces and store fronts where thriving businesses existed only a year ago.

Let's start with the global issues. At the see-and-be-seen annual global economic conference at Davos, Switzerland, the tone this year was decidedly different than in others.

Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank, observed that the financial crisis had caused fundamental changes between banking and government. Taxpayer money, he pointed out, had rescued the financial system. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in the meeting's keynote address, declared bankers' speculative behavior as "indecent behavior that will no longer be tolerated by public opinion of any country." One banker at the meetings remarked that big bankers now ranked with terrorists as objects of public scorn.

Here at home President Obama, accompanied by former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, announced last week that he saw the need for tougher financial regulation, including abandonment of the "too-big-to-fail" doctrine which, during the recent bailout, appeared to dictate that government would rescue a handful of huge financial institutions, whose failures would have wide repercussions, while abandoning smaller ones whose balance sheets might have been healthier. Volcker had been lobbying for such a policy through much of 2009 but had been rebuffed by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and White House economic czar Larry Summers.

During the same week Geithner was subjected to brutal congressional questioning regarding the financial bailout. Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, the real savior of the situation, was confirmed by the Senate for a fresh term as chair, but only by a 70-30 vote — sending a message of congressional unease with past policy.

Sunday's New York Times contained a long essay by Volcker which pursued further his thesis that too-big-to-fail concepts no longer should be pursued. He warned against complacency and a tendency to fall back on familiar but dangerous banking practices and, moreover, called for genuine structural change in the system. The same Times reviews a new book by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz, now at Columbia University, in which he castigates Summers for his championing of financial deregulation in the Clinton administration, as also in this interview.

Obama, in his State of the Union speech, called for financial re-regulation. Senate Banking Chair Chris Dodd, serving his last year in the Senate, and House Banking Chair Barney Frank are revisiting the proposals in their committees for financial reform. They almost surely will be tightened. Several weeks ahead will be dominated by testimony and discussion of competing models of re-regulation. (Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell is sponsor, along with Sen. John McCain, of a proposal to reinstitute Glass-Steagall).

Meantime, in the country, populist unrest is building — and not just in the Tea Party movement. Standing in a bookstore line, over the weekend, a half-dozen waiting customers passed the time by swapping stories of first-hand abuses which all recently had suffered at the hands of big banks. My own story: Receipt of two CitiCard invoices over the past two months which contained several-hundred-dollar "finance charges" even though all invoices are paid in full on a current basis. A call to CitiCard, after the first invoice, resulted in a customer-service agent saying the finance charges were "a bank error" which promptly would be erased. When it happened a second time, it was necessary to fight through three layers of CitiCard executives before getting the undefined several-hundred-dollar finance charge again erased.


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Sun, Jan 31, 5:06 p.m. Inappropriate

Is "Greedy Wall Street megalomaniacs" a term professional, objective journalist routinely employ? Were the multitudes compelled by force to terms in which they financed their educations, homes, cars, furniture, vacations, etc. on the basis of future earnings--as in you get it now, and earn it later? How about SSI where a simple means test would eliminate its fiscal imbalances, yet well-heeled Seniors insist they "earned" it?

I have two siblings, both highly educated, highly-paid, enjoying nice homes, multiple cars, and both busily breeding. However, both are struggling to avert bankruptcy. While they look down their nose at my well-maintain, yet dated possessions, or my "odd" yet edible landscape, or my "alternative" living arrangements--both quite "Liberal" mind you--I'm quite secure in the fact that I could purchase their houses and rent them back...ha, ha! But let them learn their lesson. Don't like the terms of you credit card, Van Dyk? I don't like subsidizing tax-credits aimed at financing others lifestyle regardless the profession.

BTW, Van Dyk, while your so busy invoking the depression, you might note the

Posted Sun, Jan 31, 5:07 p.m. Inappropriate

...fools rally.

Posted Sun, Jan 31, 6:58 p.m. Inappropriate

Almost have me today, save the "Ben Bernanke, the real savior of the situation" which is unsupported here, possibly because it might be difficult when the man appointed by GW Bush raised no alarm and seemed quite at ease with the system until the crunch was unmistakably upon us. And that conversation you think should have started in 2009 started in 2008 in Left Blogostan as an unhappy buzz when Geithner & Summers were placed at the fore of the Obama economic team, men who were at the front of the dismantling movement during the Clinton administration. This is indicative of one thing where bipartisanship has been achieved- Wall Street influence.

And @fly- yes, people are behaving irresponsibly with their money. I'm so old, I remember when banks were forbidden to give credit to bad risks. Bartenders are held to a higher level of responsiblity for serving drunks than banks are for awarding credit to people in a hole. Why is that, I wonder?

NickBob

Posted Sun, Jan 31, 9:28 p.m. Inappropriate

Like the spiraling cost of health care and health care insurance, reckless financial speculation is indicative of a larger problem. President Obama is correct when he refers to his efforts as More than anything else, what is driving our costs of living up? (pun intended)

The link below is to President Obama's Feb 24, 2009 speech to Congress on rebuilding the economy. In a speech last year, (maybe not this one), I remember him saying a step he was taking is meant to fix a small part of a larger problem. That larger problem is my point here. If you get the pun, my take on necessary reform starts from there, but we're not there yet.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/obama-text-spee.html

Wells

Posted Sun, Jan 31, 9:32 p.m. Inappropriate

Correction: President Obama (I believe) is correct when he refers to his efforts as (rough quote) "meant to fix a small part of a larger problem."

More than anything else, what (the larger problem) is driving our costs of living up? (pun intended)

Wells

Posted Mon, Feb 1, 4:58 p.m. Inappropriate

Ted, have you moved your money from Citi yet?

If Chase tries to screw me over -- and so far they've been fine for me since taking over for "The Friend of the Family" -- then they can kiss my chump change goodbye.

Joe Sperry

jsperry

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »