Kashkari’s comments are mainly interesting as further evidence of growing concern within the ruling class about the severe risk to the economy posed by the highly concentrated and unstable financial industry.
Kashkari, as we know, is himself a veteran of the industry - an alumnus of Goldman Sachs and Pimco, more widely known as the former Bush administration official who presided over the massive bailout of the sector following its collapse in 2008. He says his experience during the crisis persuaded him that the big banks need to be broken up. I would normally have attributed this to a libertarian belief that failing enterprises ought to be liquidated rather than supported, but he has also said the Dodd-Frank regulations are inadequate and that consideration should be given to treating finance as a public utility. While a break up of the banking industry would provide hedge funds and investors with lucrative buying opportunities and ease fears of too-big-to-fail, the trend to consolidation would quickly reassert itself, particularly in the face of competitive pressures from European and other banking conglomerates outside the United States. The central issue is not the size of the overweight financial industry, but that it needs to be nationalized, rationalized, and reoriented to serve public needs rather than private interests. Despite their being conditioned to regard public ownership in the abstract as anathema, I’m convinced that most Americans would rally to the takeover of the unpopular financial, pharmaceutical, and energy industries were any US politician improbably bold enough to propose these as solutions. > On Feb 17, 2016, at 9:34 AM, Perelman, Michael <[email protected]> wrote: > > I try to catch them but I am too overloaded to catch anything. Besides I > respect you too much to not express surprise at your “fuck you.” > > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > michaelperelman.wordpress.com <http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/> > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ian Murray > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 9:32 AM > To: PEN-L <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Kashkari goes rogue on Wall Street reform > > Why not? You let it slide in so many other threads. > > > > > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:27:43 +0000 > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Kashkari goes rogue on Wall Street reform > > > > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > michaelperelman.wordpress.com > > From: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 6:47 AM > To: Progressive Economics <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Kashkari goes rogue on Wall Street reform > > Oh, cool. I'm glad we're having an elevated debate. > > If you have an explanation for why reducing the size of the biggest banks so > they are not "too big to fail" is not a solution to the problem of "too big > to fail banks," why don't you tell us what that explanation is? Surely, if > you are so smart, you are equal to this task. > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Ian Murray <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 2016, at 5:50 AM, Robert Naiman <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Who said it was a "final solution"? You made that up. You're a fine one to > > talk about arrogance. You should give workshops. > > > > > > > =========== > > You really want to hair split a dubious [non]difference regarding > once-and-for-all and final solution. Banking is not a math problem. > > Oh and fuck you. > > We do not need that kind of aggression here. > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > <https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l> > > > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > <https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l>_______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
