From the New York Times, the newspaper that told us we had no choice but to attack Iraq, comes this news today:
"Congress and the Obama administration are about to take up one of the most fundamental issues stemming from the near collapse of the financial system last year--how to deal with institutions that are so big that the government has no choice but to rescue them when they get in trouble."
Here's my humble idea for how deal with such institutions: Do not assume "no choice" as a given.
If anything, I would assume the government has no choice except to *destroy* them. In the movies, when things become too monstrous due our social failure, we shoot missiles at them. Just ask Godzilla. We would have been far better off smart-bombing the headquarters of GM and AIG rather than Iraq.
Thanks for the false choice as political analysis, NY Times!
For extra laughs, here was the objection to drastic reform from Edward Yingling, professional jester for the American Bankers Association: "...you don’t want to create a system that raises great uncertainty and changes what institutions, risk management executives and lawyers are used to."
That's right! Only institutions, risk management executives and lawyers are allowed to create a system that raises great uncertainty, because that's what they're used to! They're also used to us not being able to do a damn thing about it, and get bailed out when they go belly-up.
How about public execution of anyone who charges an interest rate over 10 percent and/or makes more than $5 million a year? Would that be certain enough?