For all Obama's talk of overhaul, the US has failed to wind in Wall Street

What went wrong? Have the right lessons been learned? Could it happen again? The anniversary of the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy and the freezing of the credit markets that followed is an occasion for reflection. Full Story »

Posted by Derek Hawkins - via The Guardian (US), Real Clear Politics

See All Reviews »

Review

Derek Hawkins
3.8
by Derek Hawkins - Sep. 15, 2009

Stiglitz comes down hard on the Obama administration's response to the financial crisis, saying it hasn't done enough to regulate banks in the wake of taxpayer bailout. Well argued, but probably over the head of a lot of readers.

Unquestionably we should not have allowed banks to become so big and so intertwined that their failure would cause a crisis. But the Obama administration has created a new concept: institutions too big to be resolved, too big for capital markets to provide the necessary discipline. The perverse incentives for excessive risk-taking at taxpayers’ expense are even worse with the too-big-to-be-resolved banks than they are at the too-big-to-fail institutions. We have signed a blank cheque on the public purse. We have not circumscribed their gambling – indeed, they have access to funds from the Fed at close to zero interest rates, and it appears that “trading profits” have (besides “accounting” changes) become the major source of returns.

Last night Barack Obama defended his administration’s response to the financial crisis, but the reality is that a year on from Lehmans’ collapse, it has failed to take adequate steps to restrict institutions’ size, their risk-taking, and their interconnectedness. Indeed, it has allowed the big banks to become even bigger – just as it has failed to stem the flow of profligate executive bonuses. Obama’s call on Wall Street yesterday to support “the most ambitious overhaul of the financial system since the Great Depression” is welcome – but the devil, as ever, will be in the detail.

See All Reviews »

Derek's Rating

Overall
3.8

Good
from 12 answers
Quality
3.8
Information
4.0
Insight
4.0
Style
3.0
Context
4.0
Expertise
4.0
Originality
3.0
Relevance
4.0
Responsibility
4.0
Popularity
4.0
Credibility
4.0
More How our ratings work »