Skip to comments.Obama to propose size limits for banks
Posted on 01/21/2010 12:29:59 AM PST by Free ThinkerNY
President Barack Obama will on Thursday propose new limits on the size of US banks after spending billions of tax-payer dollars to bail out "too-big-to-fail" firms, a senior official said.
The measures would place sweeping new restrictions on a sector seen as responsible for sparking the largest recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
"A couple of months ago the president began discussing with his economic team the need to include in financial reform more specific and stronger provisions to limit the size and scope of financial institutions" the official told AFP.
The proposals aim "to cut down on excessive risk taking" among the largest banks, after crises at a handful of the largest firms threatened to choke the flow of cash to the US economy.
"(On Thursday) the president will announce a series of measures that address size and scope" of the institutions the official said.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
If we haven’t the stomach to let these banks fail then we really have no choice but to limit the size.
Occasionally a blind pig in the woods will find an acorn.
This primitive jackleg economist needs to quit playing surgeon.
This is a typical communist response to a non-problem. The issue was pushing banks to make bad loans with the community reinvestment act. When Reagan de-regulated the banks it helped fuel an unprecedented growth in the economy. Obama wants to hamstring us like FDR did when he deepened the depression.
Great. Start with the Fed.
As long as it isn’t his chums over at JPM and GS...
We fix the problem of being too big to fail by making them be little!
Seriously, we normally do not worry about things like that until it becomes an obvious anti-competitive issue.
If Democrats are hit in the head with a problem between A and B, invariably they turn to C.
It is one thing to see a bank fail, it is quite another to see America fail.
Government needs to get out of the business of doing business.
Major banks can’t fail because of “contagion”. In other words, there is a fear of a domino effect since they are all tied to each other. But limiting a bank’s size is nothing more than control.
Why not just stop subsidizing them?
Great. Just what we need.
So Zero and the pea brains in Congress will smile and tell us how this is necessary so we never again have to revisit what happened in the fall of 2008. Because, of course, the free market is what failed then, and now we need big gov to step in and fix things.
Never mind that this legislation all but institutionalizes “too big to fail”. Never mind looking into the real causes of the crisis, like the downward manipulation of interest rates by the fiat currency money czars at the Fed that fooled people into borrowing more than they could afford to buy houses at inflated prices, or the pols themselves, who had a big hand in creating the problem what with their continual push to put every American in a house.
And never mind considering real solutions, like sound money, or enforcing bankruptcy for insolvent banking institutions.
Nope, all we need is this little bit of extra regulation and all will be well. And a new regulatory agency, of course, staffed, no doubt, with typical big gov types who will put on a good show of looking out for the folks while secretly planning their futures bonuses on Wall St working for the very entities they’re supposed to regulate.
Politics 2010. Same as politics 2009. Same as politics in America since... forever. More big government solutions, brought to you by the perpetually clueless. More change we can believe in.
Fannie and Freddie?
Basically, the turning the blind eye to the condoning of such mergers was paramount to the success of the last goobermint sponsored artificial credit bubble.
On the books and in the media and from DC, it appeared the economy was on the uptick from the residential and commercial construction boom. W needed this in order to manage our debt and raise money for the WOT and more goobermint expansion.
Allowing banks to leverage up to 80:1 in the markets and then bailing them out was total BS.
Still, from a national and global standpoint, we have hundreds of trillions of 'debt instruments' that banks really have now f'n clue as to their real risk versus their real value.
Fannie and Freddie are still pumping the CDS's out with no details as to exactly what is in those packages.
Now, China has formed 4 large Chinese owned investment groups who are gobbling up commercial real estate in the US using our US treasuries they possess as collateral.
This is all being kept quite in the LSM (state run media).
So, Zer0 & Co. and Congress are still both busy now playing more smoke and mirrors to the public with such proposals. Timmy & Ben Ben still will not answer the questions in Congressional hearings that would lead to the disclosure of 'The Agenda' and who is really running the show.
You can’t be serious. Tell me you aren’t, even if you are.
This is full-on Socialism, boys and girls. Stop fawning over this fecal matter. Just think for two seconds: Is this Constitutional? (HINT: No.) If the Fed can decide how big banks can be, who’s next?
Amen, brother. Amen.
Limiting banks’ size only reduces their competitiveness against major international banks. That’s one of the reasons Glass-Steagall has been dismantled.
While the action may “spread” the risk, it does nothing to reduce the risk; in fact, it actually multiplies it by making it “wider”.
If it is not an economic illiteracy or stupidity, then it can only be explained by deliberate undermining of one of the most successful and productive industries US has left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.