Banksters win again

[Joanne98]

The Financial Times give us yet another sorry update in the bankster vs. the general public saga, and the banksters continue to gain ground. Their latest about-to-be-cinched victory is beating back a pro-reform idea sponsored by Senator Dodd (yes, even he can have the occasional “Nixon Goes to China” moment). Dodd had wanted bank regulation to be stripped from the Fed and housed in a new agency.

While that model can be argued to have led to some fumbled passes in the UK during the early stages of the crisis (most notably, the Northern Rock run), many observers contend that the flaw was the failure to hash out certain operational details, rather than the structure being inherently unworkable (in general, any organization structure is going to have particular shortcomings; you therefore need to have other mechanisms in place to compensate for them).

Perhaps most important in the case of the US, the Fed is far and away the most captured, the most asleep at the switch of the banking regulators. Keeping them in charge of bank regulation is like reappointing a fire commissioner who let half the town burn down.

And the “compromise” settled upon is to allow the banks most in need of tough supervision, ones with more than $100 billion in assets (which amounts to the biggest 23, and thus includes all the 19 TARP recipients) to remain the wards of the supine Fed. Yet these are the ones that pose the biggest systemic risks. Heck of a job, Brownie.

Continued>>>
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/03/banksters-win-again-edition-1477536.html

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. This one sentence says it all:

"The crisis happened because financial professionals had incentives to bet other people’s money in a game they could not lose."

Does not seem to be an incentive for the banksters to stop playing the game, does there?
Of course they refuse to be regulated.

[dkf]

2. Our politicians would rather hand over our money to them instead of disobeying their patrons