Skip to main content

Glass-Steagall Redux

President Barack Obama is in a mean mood. Furious that his Democrats were unable to hold one of the safest seats in the Senate, he allocates at least some of the blame for this on the large bonuses that the Wall St. bankers paid themselves in the middle of the election campaign. In the battle between America's Main Street and Wall Street- the votes are largely on Main Street.

Yesterday the President made his move: He has announced that he intended to restrict the ability of banks to use their own capital to take positions in the market, so-called proprietary trading. This is not exactly reimposing the highly restrictive Glass-Steagall Act, but it is being seen as a serious attempt to bring the bankers under control.

So serious, in fact, that the markets have fallen sharply in response. However, despite the approving noises made by George Osborne this morning, it will be quite difficult to enact these restrictions. The German model of Allfinanz or French Bancassurance is explicitly based on the ability of deposit takers to trade on markets. However, the way in which these institutions trade is rather different from the Anglo-Saxon model. Even still, the intervention by President Obama will be exceptionally difficult to enact internationally- even with the support of "Squeeky" Osborne.

I think Mr. Obama's challenge to the banks will be resisted tooth and nail. The resistance will come not only from the bankers themselves, but also from Europeans and Asians who have operated under different financial models.

President Obama, facing defeat on his health care proposals in Congress as the result of the Massachusetts special election, may find that he is picking up an even more difficult battle.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...