Recent Blog Posts
-
The $4.5 Billion Dollar Bank Run
Nov 07 201111:20 am EDT -
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:26 am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:45 am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:00 am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:36 am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:37 pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:41 am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:32 am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:29 pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:09 pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

G20: A Solid Showing
I’m no expert at reading carefully-negotiated communiqués, but the 3000-word G20 statement today seems to me to be more substantive and harder-hitting than any I can remember: it might not be as long as last November’s effort, but it packs more of a punch. Paul Krugman I think is right:
Realistically, most big-time international meetings produce nothing; this did something significant.
The point is that the G20 did what they could — which of necessity will have more impact on smaller nations reliant on IMF bailouts than it will on huge economies like that of the US. But every trillion dollars helps — that’s still a serious amount of money, especially for poorer countries, which is one reason Jeff Sachs is so ecstatic. Would a massive and coordinated fiscal stimulus have been an even better outcome? Mark Thoma thinks so, but I think the Europeans had a pretty good point when they said (a) that they were overindebted already, and (b) that their fiscal outlays would be rising substantially anyway. That’s what happens in countries with social safety nets entering a recession.
If you’re looking for disappointment, Kevin Drum notes this:
Obama was also said to be opposed to a greater role for international regulatory bodies, and he appears to have won that round. The draft section that called for regulators “to supervise cross-border institutions and to complete the establishment of colleges of supervisors for all significant cross-border financial firms” is gone.
The US regulatory agencies all failed miserably when it came to preventing or mitigating the effects of this crisis — and there’s no doubt that this crisis is global in nature. Regulation is clearly part of the solution, and equally clearly has to be globally coordinated, to prevent forum-shopping. AIG Financial Products and Lehman Brothers Europe were both based in London and were both largely unsupervised.
So it’s disheartening that the Obama administration is already taking the standard we’re-better-on-our-own-thanks approach. US regulators do not always know best. Indeed, it’s far from clear that they ever know best. And if international banking is really to be reformed going forwards, the locus of those efforts is going to have to be Basel, rather than Washington. Unfortunately, if the US is pushing back against such efforts now, it’ll continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Reprinted from Reuters.com.
Comments
If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.




