So the “innovation” that regulators, academics, consultants, and banks were all advocating more than 20 years ago was regulatory arbitrage, pure and simple. When you have regulators undermining the rules and depicting it as virtuous, behavior like Blinder’s is simply more of the same.
Fascinating. And she’s dead-on here:
Unfortunately, the Obama administration had the opportunity execute more fundamental reform at the outset. Worse, Obama himself recognized it; he was reading biographies and speeches of FDR as president elect, yet chose to pass on an historical opportunity…
I can’t imagine any senior politician now having the confidence now to defy the will of the banking industry. And it isn’t simply due to the role of corporate funding in campaigning; the roots are deeper. Being in office now is all about winning, about keeping one’s hold on power, so it isn’t surprising that everyone has a price.
Mr.Chittum really needs to stop and think. When banks could only insure deposits up to $100,000, thousand of customers were able to keep the surplus at their bank by opening additional accounts under names of family members.They did that with the bank's advice because it is legal. Mr.Chittum needs to sit down with Mr. Taleb and plainly identify the ethical standard they thing was breached. If they cannot, then the least that they are required to do is show precisely how what thousands of plain people did harmed the national community.
#1 Posted by Morris Sunshine, Ph.D., CJR on Thu 5 Aug 2010 at 02:54 AM
It's called a CDARS--Blinder invented it:
www.cdars.com/
#2 Posted by vimothy, CJR on Thu 5 Aug 2010 at 09:08 AM