Pressure Building To Break Up Big Banks?


Simon Johnson over at Baseline Scenario has this to say about the consensus surrounding regulating the banks to big to fail, versus breaking them up:

Volcker may not have the ear of the President (as the NYT points out), and Alan Greenspan – also arguing for bank breakup, but along different lines – might also be ignored. But watch Mervyn King closely.

Mervyn King is governor of the Bank of England and a hugely influential figure in central banking circles. Time and again he has proved to be not only ahead of his peers in terms of thinking about the latest problems, but also the person who is best able to frame an issue and articulate potential solutions so as to draw support from other officials around the world.

Johnson goes on to quote from a speech King gave recently. I'm not convinced. First, as I commented over at Ian Welsh's blog a few days ago:

Actually, Greenspan’s “conversion” was hedged by his typically obscurantist language. But he hasn’t changed his stripes at all.

Here's what the Time's wrote about Greenspan:

Alan Greenspan, the only other former Fed chairman still living, favored the repeal of Glass-Steagall a decade ago and, unlike Mr. Volcker, would not bring it back now. He declined to be interviewed for this article, but in response to e-mailed questions he cited two recent public statements in which he suggested that the nation’s largest financial institutions become smaller, so that none would be too big to fail, requiring a federal rescue

How does one go about making them small without breaking them up is beyond me, but I digress. I don't see this as a consensus shattering development in the least. But Johnson does have a point, in a sense. If King can convince Gordon Brown of his views, then yes, the consensus will break down and then real reform might be possible. Why? Well, Brown really did lead the way in the early days of the financial crisis and if he threw his weight around in favor of something like this in London then policy-makers in the US would have to take note. Until then just because Volcker is getting press doesn't mean a thing.


Sean Paul Kelley October 26, 2009 - 2:13pm
( categories: Economics: USA )

Obama, the Congress, everyone on Wall Street (that they care about) opposes it, and the political will just isn't there. It was possible 6 months ago when the banks were begging for survival, but that horse is well out of the barn.

The only big radical variable here would be if healthcare with a strongish public option passes congress that emboldens progressives to push on breaking up the banks and reapplying Glass-Stegal. But economics is not healthcare. Everyone can understand that children get sick and die without access to medical care and that high costs can bankrupt a perfectly functional family. Trying to explain investment banking vs. commercial banking, CDOs, leverage, and anti-trust law to the average American is a tall order. They really just don't care as long as the system can keep chugging along (even if it is limping along.) Many can't understand the mortgage they signed their name and wealth to, they want to think about economics as little as is humanly possible.

My guess is the time to have this reform is after the next big ass whoopin', when the banks return to the public feeder bar for survival. This is a good time to push for strong action though, as it sets it up for possible real reform later. But if you expect results, don't be too disappointed if it goes nowhere (super fast.)

zot23 October 26, 2009 - 3:18pm

Even the teabaggists knew that handing billions to Goldman Sachs was truly shocking to the conscience.

You should go online and start reading accounts people have at getting screwed by banks. There's plenty of rage at the machine out there.

However, in "The Village" of DC, everyone knows someone at Goldman Sachs or whatever.

Yet their really is, and should be, an inherent tension between The State and Big Banks, because of all the power banks have.

If politicians smarted up, they could see that by eliminating these plutocrat billionaire bankers, they would really have an easier time of it - just ask Vladimir Putin about that.

W

KingElvis October 26, 2009 - 4:48pm

there's no lack of it for sure. Here in Colorado there is plenty of foreclosing and good folks getting pulled under. But protesting/hating a bank and throwing a molotov through a front window are two different things. If the economy comes back (or even stays stable at current crap levels), the anger will simmer and stew. As long as you can keep any roof over the family and have the occasional trip to McDs for the kids, it's not pitchfork time. When the economy goes back into the crapper, that's when we hit the roiling boil IMHO. I plan to take a nice little South American vacation about that time ;)

I hope you guys are right, if we did this now it would be a lot easier. I just don't think it is in the cards yet. The progressive block is the only group that has the desire/balls to push this through and they are likely to spend themselves on Afghan spending before reform gets off the ground.

zot23 October 26, 2009 - 8:34pm

There was a great post by Stirling Newberry back in July (http://www.correntewire.com/three_polar_politics_post_petroleum_america) in which he detailed the three sided shape of American politics. With that as background the breakup of the banks (as a rejection of TARP would have succeeded in doing for Obama last September-October) would help to reforge the old Confederate - Progressive consensus that was the basis for FDR's political power.

I was afraid last Fall that Obama was either missing or choosing not to take this enormous political opportunity and have become convinced since that it was a matter of choice that he won't back down from.

Again opportunities lost.

hvd October 27, 2009 - 9:14am

There's what I think, what you think, and then there is a post by Stirling. I'll take the post by Stirling ;)

zot23 October 27, 2009 - 10:16am

The European banking industry's second great overhaul within a year is under way.

The first, launched after the collapse of Lehman Brothers 13 months ago, saw European Union (EU) governments prop up dozens of banks that faced imminent collapse. The second will require many of the bailed-out banks to undergo radical restructurings to reduce their risk exposure and ensure the state aid doesn't give them an unfair competitive advantage.

ING Groep NV , the Dutch banking and insurance giant, started the overhaul with a bang yesterday with the announcement that it will raise €7.5-billion ($11.9-billion) in a rights offering and sell its insurance businesses. The split marks the end of ING's grand bancassurance model, launched in the early 1990s, that assumed bankers and insurers could create value by cross-selling each other's products in a new financial services supermarket.
More


Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.

adrena October 27, 2009 - 1:40pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.