Comments on: Why not Baby Banks? http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2010/01/25/why-not-baby-banks/ Option ARMageddon Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:06:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: divvy trader http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2010/01/25/why-not-baby-banks/comment-page-1/#comment-4985 Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:26:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/?p=5162#comment-4985 too sensible and simple ! and for added measure , lets just establish a naational limit on leverage at all banks to say 10×1 . Then they can’t start growing on steroids again .

but then Obama can’t whip up anti-bank sentiment among the looney left and there is no way that Congress gets to milk this idea for money ( ie no new taxes ) so it’ll never see the light of day .

]]>
By: Tom Hickey http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2010/01/25/why-not-baby-banks/comment-page-1/#comment-4973 Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:05:20 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/?p=5162#comment-4973 The argument at the time of the crisis was that the big banks could not be put into resolution as they should have been by law because the resources were not available for a task of that size. That should be the definition of “too big.” If we are going to have a capitalistic system in the US, the legal and regulatory system needs to be able to enforce the law and regulations. Otherwise, there is lack of accountability, and when this happens there is lack of responsibility and an increase of cheating, eventually undermining the system.

What’s so hard to get about this? Oh ,I forgot, all the corporate cash that got us here in the first place.

]]>