Comments on: Politics and bank regulation don’t mix Option ARMageddon Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:06:34 +0000 hourly 1 By: Benny Acosta Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:24:01 +0000 From what I understand, the Fed says it didn’t have the tools to handle the collapse of these firms. They aren’t asking for the authority to do so. But they do point out that because of a lack of any processes to unwind those companies the Fed had to keep the financial system afloat or the resulting defaults would have cause a depression on a global scale.

Mr Bernanke Pointed out that during the depression the banks were allowed to simply fail. And the resulting defaults cascaded causing a global down turn. He said that in order to prevent a repeat, some choices needed to be made to support the banks. If I understand history correctly, there was no financial social safety net in place during that time either.

I think it would have been easier and cheaper to keep the citizens afloat than it has cost us to keep the banks up. It also would have put the banks in a position of accountability to the citizens. Citizens with money can choose what sectors of the economy to support by choosing where to spend. It’s just incomprehensible to me that even though the citizenry is the engine of the economy, the engine is never given any fuel.

It’s like wanting to keep harvesting fruit from a tree that never gets watered. Eventually the tree dies and there is no fruit to be had. We are strangling our people with poverty. We are cutting off our own heads by keeping our people uneducated and sick, while expecting them to labor tirelessly. Our future slips away with each failed generation. It’s time to think about the citizens.

By: Kirk Powell Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:26:21 +0000 Where were the regulators when Citigroup and Bank of America went bankrupt in September 2008? Instead of applying the law, the Federal Reserve confiscated smaller solvent banks to cover the losses on the “too big too fail” banks that escaped the carving knife of the FDIC.

When government no longer applies the law fairly, we are left with a muddled mess of political conyism choosing who is and isn’t bankrupt (solvent).

In a post September 2008 world, smaller regional banks, community banks and my retail store had to compete with trillions of free dollars provided to bankrupt institutions … I don’t care how brilliant you think you are, you cannot fight the impact that has on the market place. When I bid for an asset, an insolvent Bank of America can out bid me … these zombie banks can outlast anyone else.

Return to the Rule of Law. Elsewise, AmTrust has as much right to exist as the bigger bankrupt companies that are feeding off the trough at the Federal Reserve.

By: nick gogerty Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:17:20 +0000 Rolfe, thanks for highlighting this story. These actions if seen in another country would be seen as crony capitalism but may be ignored due to ethnocentric biases.

I think the separation of regulatory and political power is of vital importance. By allowing regulators to be influenced politically we make a mockery of most regulatory authority which is usually decreed by statute or hearing.

The last thing politicians needs is more power and even more dangerous is foggy power in the form of indirect influence over regulatory action.