Washington’s Blog
September 15, 2009

Top economists and financial experts believe that the economy cannot recover unless the big, insolvent banks are broken up in an orderly fashion.

There is no logical reason not to break them up.

	Joseph Stiglitz said that the U.S. government is wary of challenging the financial industry because it is politically difficult.

So why isn’t the Obama administration doing so?

For all of the wrong reasons:

• Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said yesterday that the U.S. government is wary of challenging the financial industry because it is politically difficult, and that he hopes the Group of 20 leaders will cajole the U.S. into tougher action

• Economic historian Niall Ferguson asks:

Guess which institutions are among the biggest lobbyists and campaign-finance contributors? Surprise! None other than the TBTFs [too big to fails].

• Manhattan Institute senior fellow Nicole Gelinas agrees:

The too-big-to-fail financial industry has been good to elected officials and former elected officials of both parties over its 25-year life span

• Investment analyst and financial writer Yves Smith says:
[efoods]

Major financial players [have gained] control over the all-important over-the-counter debt markets…

It is pretty hard to regulate someone who has a knife at your throat.

• William K. Black – the senior regulator during the S&L crisis, and an Associate Professor of both Economics and Law at the University of Missouri – says:

There has been no honest examination of the crisis because it would embarrass C.E.O.s and politicians . . .

Instead, the Treasury and the Fed are urging us not to examine the crisis and to believe that all will soon be well. There have been no prosecutions of the chief executives of the large nonprime lenders that would expose the “epidemic” of fraudulent mortgage lending that drove the crisis. There has been no accountability…

The Obama administration and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke have refused to investigate the nature and causes of the crisis. And the administration selected Timothy Geithner, who with then Treasury Secretary Paulson bungled the bailout of A.I.G. and other favored “too big to fail” institutions, to head up Treasury.

Now Lawrence Summers, head of the White House National Economic Council, and Mr. Geithner argue that no fundamental change in finance is needed. They want to recreate a secondary market in the subprime mortgages that caused trillions of dollars of losses.

Traditional neo-classical economic theory, particularly “modern finance theory,” has been proven false but economists have failed to replace it. No fundamental reform can be passed when the proponents are pretending that there really is no crisis or need for change.

• Harvard professor of government Jeffry A. Frieden says:

Regulatory agencies are often sympathetic to the industries they regulate. This pattern is so well known among scholars that it has a name: “regulatory capture.” This effect can be due to the political influence of the industry on its regulators; or to the fact that the regulators spend so much time with their charges that they come to accept their world view; or to the prospect of lucrative private-sector jobs when regulators retire or resign.

• Economic consultant Edward Harrison agrees:

Regulating Wall Street has become difficult in large part because of regulatory capture.

The Emergency Election Sale is now live! Get 30% to 60% off our most popular products today!