You’d think the author of a well-received new book slamming the “too big to fail” doctrine and calling for smarter financial regulations would find something to like in President Obama’s proposal to break up big banks. But in a New York Post op-ed today, Nicole argues that Obama’s latest gambit would leave New York with “the worst of both worlds: a smaller Wall Street that still poses the same risks to the global economy.”
Ending “too big to fail” is indeed crucial. But Obama’s proposals wouldn’t do that.
They seem removed from reality and seemed to come out of nowhere, which rattled markets. Volatile markets are a fact of life, though, in an environment where the government doles out rescues and punishments, rather than providing predictable, rational rules.
The details: Obama wants Congress to put limits on banks that can borrow from the Federal Reserve and whose small depositors benefit from FDIC insurance. Such banks could no longer make speculative bets with their own funds. Firms shouldn’t take big risks “while benefiting from special financial privileges,” the president said.
Hmm. This rule would have done nothing to prevent the 2008 crisis. AIG, target of the biggest rescue, didn’t collect FDIC-insured deposits. Nor was it allowed to borrow from the Fed. The same holds true for Bear Stearns and Lehman. Goldman Sachs and the rest, which would be governed by the new rule, won Fed-borrowing privileges only after the crisis hit.
About the Author
E.J. McMahon
Edmund J. McMahon is Empire Center's founder and a senior fellow.
You may also like
New York’s pricey hospitals draw pushback from labor
- February 22, 2023
At end of ’22, NY still near bottom in pandemic recovery
- January 24, 2023
A Look at Covid Learning Loss in NYC
- September 29, 2022
Judge, Jury and … CFO?
- August 4, 2022
NY’s jobs recovery now strongest downstate
- July 21, 2022
New York still lagging nation’s employment recovery
- June 22, 2022