Bankers Opposed Even to Resolution Authority
I pointed out yesterday that even conservatives like Ben Bernanke agree on the need for congress to pass some form of “resolution authority” regulation, empowering the government to deal with failing financial institutions that aren’t covered by the FDIC process. That’s clearly a necessary step to dealing with the “too big to fail” issue, and some people even think it’s sufficient.
And then there’s Edward Yingling, the banksters’ top lobbyist, who’s against the idea on the grounds that it “could make it unnecessarily more expensive for them to do business during less turbulent times.” As Pat Garofalo observes “as for ‘unnecessary’ expenditures, I’d like to ask Yingling what he thinks of the $700 billion spent to pull the banking system back from the brink.”
But, look, this is just zealous advocacy on Yingling’s part. It’s clearly preferable for large financial firms that they be allowed to exist in a way that ensures the taxpayers have no choice but to cover their losses in the case of screwups. Anyone with any sense would jump at the chance to privatize profits and socialize losses. It’d just be insane of congress to let them keep getting away with it. Y
23 Responses to “Bankers Opposed Even to Resolution Authority”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 26th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Edward Yingling, the banksters’ top lobbyist
“Banksters”: I love it. Please use that all the time.
Also, Mr. Yingling should go back to the original spelling of his name and continue to produce fantastic beer.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Also, Mr. Yingling should go back to the original spelling of his name and continue to produce fantastic beer.
Panda Beer?
October 26th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Ah yes, the old “even conservatives like [person who isn't even remotely conservative] agree that…”
The taxpayers had “no choice but to cover their losses” because the political class was bought and paid for. Most taxpayers did not want to sign that blank check. We certainly didn’t need to, despite all the lies and obfuscation. But most of the Democrats, many Republicans, and Big-Government Bush went along with it.
Grand Theft America.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I second the kudos to Matt for contributing to the neologism “bankster” becoming widely used. Here’s the Urban Dictionary link.
Next stop, the OED.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Most taxpayers did not want to sign that blank check. We certainly didn’t need to, despite all the lies and obfuscation
really, Mike? You say that with certainty – that it was all “lies and obfuscation”? The banking system wasn’t going down the tubes last fall and threatening to likely take the economy with it? Just politicians and their “lies and obfuscation”.
I assume that you are independently wealthty with your wealth secured away somewhere safe – that you aren’t a wage earner dependent on your company’s access to the capital markets in order for you to have a paycheck.
This is sort of like the holocaust deniers. Maybe they should have let the banking system and the economy crash and millions and millions of people lose their jobs – then you wouldn’t have the deniers claiming that it was all “lies and obfuscation”.
Hey Mike – I hear a teabag calling you dude…
October 26th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Seriously, isn’t it a conflict of interest for a government-funded company (BofA, Lockheed Martin, etc.) to have lobbyists? They’re using taxpayer dollars to argue for regulations that are often against taxpayer interests.
If a bank or an aerospace company can put together a project that doesn’t require any dole, then by all means lobby for rules regarding that project. But enough of lobbying for the F-22, or no clawbacks, or whatever.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Keep drinking that Kool-Aid, andy. We didn’t need the TARP, we didn’t need the “stimulus”, and the economy is in the tank anyway. There was no existential threat to the economy, just a bunch of greedy opportunists.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Rush tell you that, Mike?
October 26th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I guess since liberals don’t pay taxes, they don’t really care if the government gets scammed.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Your first few posts were entertaining, the last one was just stupid. Troll-fail.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Mike,
I agree with you.
We could have better spent the tarp money by simply allowing the banks to fail and giving 1 trillion dollars cash to people who make less than 100,000 a year. It would have been $4000 to each person in America.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I think you should start signing all of your posts “Y.”
I like it.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I said this at the time, and I’ll say it again: People living in America today have had the great, historically-unusual good fortune never to live through a series of cascading failures in the financial system – that is, a bank run followed by a depression. Because of this, they don’t always appreciate just how horrific such an event truly is.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
In a similar vane… You should only buy life insurance on the day you die. Buying it years – or even weeks – ahead of time is a waste of money.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Damn, why didn’t anyone tell me I’m not supposed to pay taxes. When ACORN finds out how much I’ve paid I’ll get sent to a FEMA concentration camp for sure.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Joel, and I’m sure you’ve experienced all the horrors t5he world has to offer, so why don’t ye enlighten us O Martyr’d one?
October 26th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Well,
Bankers got George Mason U professors arguing to do away with inside trading laws… No disrespect for Tyler, but that place is a fruitcake.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489324091790350.html
October 26th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Mr. Yingling is a company man, a flack, a lackey, a whore. This is a very desirable position in America. You get paid very well to say what someone tells you to say. Everyone knows what you say is paid for and you know they know what you say is purchased speech, but here is the beauty part. Your respected. In fact no one is more respected by our media than the flack. Another great thing is that what you say no matter how absurd and self serving to your master is taken a perfectly totally legit. In fact if someone is not paid to speak on any public issue is not paid they are considered a piece of shit.
If you happen to run into Mr Yingling I suggest calling him a whore loudly and spitting on his shoes.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
“Anyone with any sense would jump at the chance to privatize profits and socialize losses. It’d just be insane of congress to let them keep getting away with it.”
Hence the meta-need to ensure that the interests of congresscritters are NOT the same as the interests of the banksters.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
What goes largely unsaid is that the small and medium sized banks (those that are not “too big to fail”) aren’t actually very happy about the situation with the big banks. A close relative of mine is a senior VP at a medium sized bank. He is generally a staunch right-wing conservative on any issue you can name. But for the past year he has been PISSED at the big banks for screwing up and getting bailed out.
Fundamentally he sees it as unfair competition, and he tells me that others in his part of the industry see things the same way. I told him last October (of 2008) that I thought banks that were too big to fail were too big to exist and he basically said “hell yeah. Either that or regulate the shit out of them.” Now this is a guy who has never thought anything should be regulated before.
What I’m saying is that there’s an opportunity there to turn the small and medium sized banks against the big guys and sell regulation as something that’s supported by 75% of the industry. If this were sold correctly, I think this is the result you’d get.
October 27th, 2009 at 3:52 am
Such interesting read and information, thanks for sharing this post. I will check back to read your other new posts. Please come visit my site Seattle Yellow Page Business Directory when you got time.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
[...] (más vale deflación con honra que crecimiento, dicen). Comentar sobre cómo los banqueros son incapaces de aceptar incluso regulaciones que les convienen. Enlazar este artículo sobre nuevas teorías [...]
October 28th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Njorl, life insurance is good for your money plan.Most of white collars have it…