Big banks’ ability to dictate terms to governments stems from an implicit threat: the financial sector – and with it the economy’s payment system – would collapse if a systemically important bank was ever pushed into insolvency. But maintaining the payment system can and should be separated from the problem of bank insolvency.
BERLIN – The G-20’s decision in November 2008 not to let any systemically relevant bank perish may have seemed wise at the time, given the threat of a global financial meltdown. But that decision, and bad policies by central banks and governments since then, has given over-indebted major banks the power to blackmail their rescuers – a power that they have used to create a financial system in which they are effectively exempt from liability.
Big banks’ ability to extort such an arrangement stems from an implicit threat: the financial sector – and with it the economy’s payment system – would collapse if a systemically important bank were ever pushed into insolvency. But it is time to call the bankers’ bluff: maintaining the payment system can and should be separated from the problem of bank insolvency.
Above all, the G-20’s decision to prop up systemically relevant banks must be revisited. And governments must respond to the banks’ threats by declaring their willingness to let insolvent banks be judged accordingly. A market economy must rest on the economic principle of profit and loss. An economy with neither bankruptcies nor a rule of law that applies equally to all is no market economy. The law that is valid for all other companies should apply to banks as well.
To continue reading, register now.
As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.
After a 9% decline in the second half of 2020, the broad dollar index – the real effective exchange rate as calculated by the Bank for International Settlements – has gone the other way, soaring by 12.3% from January 2021 through May 2022. And yet the deterioration of the US current-account balance has continued.
revisits his predicition in 2020 of a dollar crash and explains why he got it perfectly wrong.
No single summit can resolve NATO’s deficiencies and meet its lofty goals, from reaffirming shared values to enhancing resilience, especially with a conventional conflict raging on its eastern doorstep. But the Madrid summit can – and must – lay the foundations for a more united, robust, and revitalized alliance.
hopes that the upcoming summit in Madrid will cement the Alliance's newfound unity and resolve.
BERLIN – The G-20’s decision in November 2008 not to let any systemically relevant bank perish may have seemed wise at the time, given the threat of a global financial meltdown. But that decision, and bad policies by central banks and governments since then, has given over-indebted major banks the power to blackmail their rescuers – a power that they have used to create a financial system in which they are effectively exempt from liability.
Big banks’ ability to extort such an arrangement stems from an implicit threat: the financial sector – and with it the economy’s payment system – would collapse if a systemically important bank were ever pushed into insolvency. But it is time to call the bankers’ bluff: maintaining the payment system can and should be separated from the problem of bank insolvency.
Above all, the G-20’s decision to prop up systemically relevant banks must be revisited. And governments must respond to the banks’ threats by declaring their willingness to let insolvent banks be judged accordingly. A market economy must rest on the economic principle of profit and loss. An economy with neither bankruptcies nor a rule of law that applies equally to all is no market economy. The law that is valid for all other companies should apply to banks as well.
To continue reading, register now.
As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.
Register
orSubscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.
Already have an account? Log in