Business
See other Business Articles
Title: Guest post from OWS: Too Big to Fail is Too Big to Ignore
Source:
FT Alphaville
URL Source: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/201 ... -to-fail-is-too-big-to-ignore/
Published: Jan 31, 2012
Author: Guest writer
Post Date: 2012-02-01 12:48:15 by lucysmom
Keywords: None
Views: 2842
Comments: 9
As a presidential candidate, Jon Huntsman proposed a six-point plan to address the critical and important problem of banks that are too big to fail. Now that he has left the race, there is no presidential candidate with a plan or even with an obvious interest in addressing this vital question. The Alternative Banking Working Group of Occupy Wall Street believes it is extremely problematic that this issue is being ignored, and urges every presidential candidate, including Barack Obama, to propose their too big-to-fail plans for review and for debate. In the weeks and months to come, presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle should make explicit plans to set up appropriate firebreaks in the financial system to protect taxpayers.
We’d like to take a moment to comment on Huntsman’s original plan, which is a good start. It sets a cap on bank size based on assets as a percentage of GDP. While such a cap could constitute a step in the right direction, it remains an inadequate solution unless other significant issues are addressed. Since Huntsman’s plan does not consider the impact of derivatives, implementation of his plan could lead to banks with limited hard assets and bloated derivatives books.
We propose that the plan also include caps on risk, as measured by various metrics involving risk models. To guard against manipulation of these models, we believe that the risk models should themselves be measured against a periodically changing series of benchmark portfolios – an idea also proposed by Vikram Pandit.
Next, we have three topics to add to Huntsman’s plan, namely the opacity of banks’ portfolios, the interconnectedness of banks, and the fact that markets themselves, like money markets, can be too big to fail and can lead to government bailouts at the taxpayer’s expense.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: antiping to Eric, A K A Stone, Fred Mertz, Godwinson, go65, war, no gnu taxes, Skip Intro, ferret mike, mininggold, jwpegler, brian s, mcgowanjm (#0)
The note below has been prepared by the Alternative Banking Working Group of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement.
ping
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
#2. To: lucysmom (#0)
I'd have voted for Hunmtsman had he gotten the nomination.
The US could use a technocrat right now...
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
#3. To: lucysmom, *Ron Paul for President* (#0)
Any sort of legislation would be worthless since congress would just override it in it's next bailout bill. It would take an honest congress unwilling to accept bribes from the banks, or a constitutional amendment to really put a stop to "too big to fail" bailouts. An honest congress ain't gonna happen unless the Democrats and Republicans go the way of the Whigs.
A constitutional amendment is the best bet, IMO.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
#4. To: war (#2)
I'd have voted for Hunmtsman had he gotten the nomination.
I liked him too. He just wasn't wacky enough for the peeps though.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
#5. To: hondo68 (#3)
A constitutional amendment is the best bet, IMO.
If you mean a Constitutional amendment forbidding corporate money in politics, then I agree.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
#6. To: lucysmom (#5)
a Constitutional amendment forbidding corporate money in politics
You're tinkering around the edges while protecting the corporate status quo. Remove illegal corporate person-hood, and let a truly free market take them down.
You're shredding the first amendment to correct the previous error by congress, of creating a phony person with more rights than citizens have, known as a corporation. Pull down the special corporate privilege protective barrier. Those peckerwoods are sure as hell not any better than us!
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
#7. To: hondo68 (#6)
You're tinkering around the edges while protecting the corporate status quo. Remove illegal corporate person-hood, and let a truly free market take them down.
You is right, and I was limited. We agree (don't tell)
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
#8. To: hondo68 (#6)
Remove illegal corporate person-hood, and let a truly free market take them down.
So just how could that be accomplished? The creation of the "truly free market" that is.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
#9. To: mininggold, *Ron Paul for President* (#8) (Edited)
The creation of the "truly free market"
Well if we had a president with a some guts he/she could give the finger to the UN, NATO, NAFTA and other foreign moochers. Then push for tariffs on countries like China that put steep tariffs on US goods. This is what they're calling "free trade" nowadays. It's only free if both countries have no tariffs.
The main thing is to remove the special privileges / super citizen status bestowed upon corporations. Prosecute and jail the corporate bastards who've been looting and pillaging. If we did what they do, we'd be in jail. Presently they enjoy the privileges of royalty, which is illegal under the constitution. Like so many other things it's illegal, but congress and the courts did it anyway. Just enforcing the constitution would do it without any further legislation. What are the odds of us ever having a law abiding president, and an Attorney General willing to prosecute fat cat criminals?
Equal protection under the law, not special privilege for the chosen few!
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]