Require banks to finance more of their business with shareholder equity, rather than simply borrowing more and more against their deposits and trusting that the government will consider them "too big to fail"? Especially bigger banks? Yup, that's pretty radical. And that's a good thing, as even Bloomberg's editors realize.
Embedded Link
What’s So Radical About a Safer Financial System?
Momentum is building in Washington for a reform that would make extremely large banks less threatening to the U.S. economy. Opponents are calling it “radical.” What’s actually radical — and dangerous…
28 view(s)
Sounds like a moderate, common-sense plan to me. Actually, pretty much the way banks used to be run before right-wing thieves and true believers trashed the country.
Radical would be nationalizing these failed banks and getting rid of the Federal Reserve.
Yes, that would be radical, @Jaguar. I’m not enough of a banking/economics wonk to speak authoritatively on the subject, but it’s not clear to me that countries with nationalized banks and full governmental control over banking are much more economically stable. But tighter regulation of the private playing field, as well as adding sufficient safety equipment to privatize risks rather than socializing them, seems completely warranted.
Oh, I’m not trying to promote a particular agenda, though after almost a half century of watching liberal incrementalism losing out to right-wing radicalism, I’d love to see the arena of debate widened.