A Citizen's Guide to Reforming Wall Street
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
he real scandal isn't the Street's unlawful acts (i.e., Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Goldman Sachs) but legal acts that have reaped the Street a bonanza and nearly sunk the rest of us.
It's good we finally have an SEC on which three out of five commissioners are willing to enforce laws already on the books. Hopefully other enforcement agencies (CFTC, FDIC, and the Fed) will follow suit. But we also need to make illegal the recklessness that's now legal.
The Dodd bill now being considered in the Senate is a step in the right direction. Yet despite the hype, it's a very modest step. It leaves out three of the most important things necessary to prevent a repeat of the Wall Street meltdown:
1. Require that trading of all derivatives be done on open exchanges where parties have to disclose what they're buying and selling and have enough capital to pay up if their bets go wrong. The exception in the current bill for so-called "unique" derivatives opens up a loophole big enough for bankers to drive their Ferrari's through.
2. Resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act in its entirety so commercial banks are separated from investment banks. The current bill doesn't go nearly far enough. Commercial banks should take deposits and lend money. Investment banks should be limited to the casino we call the stock market, helping companies issue new issues and making bets. Nothing good comes of mixing the two. We learned this after the Great Crash of 1929, and then forgot it in 1999 when Congress allowed financial supermarkets to do both.
3. Cap the size of big banks at $100 billion in assets. The current bill doesn't limit the size of banks at all. It creates a process for winding down the operations of any bank that gets into trouble. But if several big banks are threatened, as they were when the housing bubble burst, their failure would pose a risk to the whole financial system, and Congress and the Fed would surely have to bail them out. The only way to ensure no bank is too big to fail is to make sure no bank is too big, period. Nobody has been able to show any scale efficiencies over $100 billion in assets, so that should be the limit.
Wall Street doesn't want these three major reforms because they'd cut deeply into profits, and it's using its formidable lobbying clout with both parties to prevent these reforms from even from surfacing. It's time for Main Street - Tea Partiers, Coffee partiers, and beer drinkers - to be heard.
Open Article On Originating Site
Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," and his most recent book, "Supercapitalism." His "Marketplace" commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |










Comments
The all inclusive rallying cry at the end was refreshing and a much needed call or unity,
The Supreme Court may have authorized this behavior but only because Corporations are recognized as persons. Take away their personhood and "free speech" is no longer guaranteed. The big problem is giving corporations the rights of real people. How can the Constitution be construed as showing this to be an intention of its framers? Talk about activist judges.
a nice helping of polluted bathwater with any babe of a worthy reform idea.
1) On derivatives, as it pertains to financial institutions (not agriculture, where such hedge markets are very important), there should be some method to ensure that banks doing business in the United States are not seeking a loophole by trading in derivatives in other countries, such as Hong Kong or Singapore.
2) Absolutely bring back the Glass-Steagall Act This would resolve much of the problem.
3) Capping the asset value is interesting. The goal is to minimize systemic risk. But what would prevent these institutions from going off-shore to acquire more assets? That is, they form a holding company in the Bahamas, Europe, Asia, etc. Or, what would prevent a foreign bank from having such large asset value, thereby creating undo influence on our domestic economy as well?
RSS feed for comments to this post.