Sep 30, 2008

La culpa es de la desregulación?

Mmmmm... algunos no están convencidos:

It's very important to dispel the myth that the current financial crisis was the result of deregulation. As Peter Wallison notes in this article:
There has been a great deal of deregulation in our economy over the last 30 years, but none of it has been in the financial sector or has had anything to do with the current crisis.

The repeal of portions of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 has no relevance whatsoever to the financial crisis, with one major exception: it permitted banks to be affiliated with firms that underwrite securities, and thus allowed Bank of America Corp. to acquire Merrill Lynch & Co. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. to buy Bear Stearns Cos. Both transactions saved the government the costs of a rescue and spared the market substantial additional turmoil.

None of the investment banks that got into financial trouble, specifically Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., were affiliated with commercial banks, and none were affected in any way by the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

It is correct to say that there has been significant deregulation in the U.S. over the last 30 years, most of it under Republican auspices. But this deregulation -- in long-distance telephone rates, air fares, securities-brokerage commissions, and trucking, to name just a few sectors of the economy where it occurred -- has produced substantial competition and innovation, driving down consumer costs and producing vast improvements and efficiencies in our economy.

Republicans have favored financial regulation where it was necessary, as in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while the Democrats have opposed it. In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a tough regulatory bill for Fannie and Freddie over the unanimous opposition of committee Democrats. The opposition of the Democrats when the bill reached the full Senate made its enactment impossible.

4 comments:

  1. Todo lo contrario. Esto es consecuencia directa de la regulación.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Acá el tema también es por qué la mayoría Republicana de los primeros seis años de Bush no bajó el gasto público, o al menos lo congeló.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Es una verguenza lo que hizo el gobierno republicano en el tema de gasto desde la llegada de Bush. Clinton es el "fiscalemente responsable" en este escenario. Es un desastre.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.