The Volcker Rule for Financial Institutions
Sunday, January 24th, 2010 at
5:55 pm
President Obama calls for new restrictions on the size and scope of financial institutions to rein in excessive risk-taking and protect taxpayers. The proposed legislation is called the Volcker Rule in recognition of the efforts of former Federal Reserve Chairman and current Presidents Economic Recovery Advisory Board Chairman Paul Volcker. January 21, 2010.
Tagged with: accountability • banking • banks • Barack • economics • economy • finance • financial institutions • Obama • Paul Volcker • president • too big to fail
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Obama’s delivering Volkers reforms. If Volker says it needs to be done get ‘er done.
Judging by the spelling, it was probably one guy all along, he’s 13, and he probably has gone to bed.
it certainly was not a loan. We bought their stock, remember? We were even promised of making money when the do recover.
I don’t want to be all negative, but I have to say I am pessimistic about the timing of all this. I am pessimistic because I cannot understand why it would take Obama a losing election in MA to realize people are angry at the establishment. We had a huge collapse in 2008 and it takes our president a Republican with a pickup truck to fight back against people who caused the problem. I am sorry, but Obama should be one step ahead of people when it comes to protecting the interest of American ppl.
we do not need hedge funds to make the economy recover
maderend: The reason why Mr Brown won in Massachutes is because he lied.. Massachutes has 97% healthcare coverage in their state. Mr Brown told them they will lose this if Obama’s healthcare plan goes through which is a lie. He also told people M.A will lose many jobs because of cap and trade etc. He lied and freightened them into voting for him. Watch fox news coverage and it will show you how Mr Brown won. Obama is continuing to do what he started last year working on jobs!
I am not argue about why Brown won. The president might have been busy with creating jobs since last year (very passively, as always it is with his style) BUT I am talking about banking reform. It was about 3 months ago when a photo of Obama and Volcker was published, and showed how frustrated Volcker was with Obama’s refusal to put regulation similar to Glass-Stiegel act. Last week, Elizabeth warren wrote a letter to the public asking for support. So don’t be telling me he’s not to blame
because making more laws doesnt always fix things, it just makes things more complicated. the laws that they do make need to be made bette, and they won’t pass laws that actually hurt the businesses because the businesses are what runs the goverment unfortunantly
Obama had been meeting in a serious way with Volcker about this issue specifically since mid December. Assuming they threw this together in less than a week, is a rather bizzare assuption on your part.
put what together? a speech? Obama is not unfamiliar with Volcker’s position. The question is when he decides to endorse his position. and more importantly, when he decides to implement his ideas on legislation.
I would ease off the paranoia a bit. This was in the works for a while. Its a reasonable approach, and to assume that it only happened because the white house wants to look good, is very simplistic. There are many reasons why choices are made, some have merit some don’t. The main issue at hand here is if the policy is a decent one. In this case I think it is. I say that, by also acknowledging that there could be unforeseen problems with it. But thats the case with any policy.
I never implied that the they are doing it to only look good. I am saying it’s late! and from the use of keywords such as “common sense” you can understand it’s a political response rather than a proactive action.
you called me simple-minded and paranoid with no reason whatsoever, while failing to understand what I am saying. come up with a well-thought out answer next time!
When you talked about the MA race, and timing, it just sort of seemed you were suggesting a PR move of some kinda.
Common sense isn’t always easy to put into policy and have work. When you are trying to work out of other situations, you have to build a foundation in which to apply proactive policy. Last year was about securing the markets and gaging how much big banks are willing to help. This year will be much more proactive now that the dust has settled, and banks have shown their post melt down hands, it will be easier to pass common sense policy.
of course, it’s a PR move at this point. I am hopeful that because of the political pressure, it will turn into real action. But coming out forceful like this is a PR move.
well, this is not how politics works. if you give something, you have to get back something in return. let me give you a solid example: In March 2009, SEC suspended mark to market rule in order to make banks look like they are healthy. Banks passed the so-called stress test and their stock rose. A savvy president should have gotten something return. I hope he now gets things done, but given America’s troubles, president should be more aggressive in getting things done.
you have no way of knowing thats it’s totally a PR move. I’m sure on some level they are aware of how a policy is going to be received, and in this case they know people will like it more than other ideas the country is split on. I don’t think the sole purpose of putting those policy out right now was totally PR driven. Maybe 20% PR driven. Of course i’m just making an observation and so are you. To know you are right, is simplistic.
I think you have a different view on how politics works, and the problems caused by aggressive action at the wrong time. Sometimes you have to let the hand play out a bit, before you start making your move. It just depends whats more important, short-sided populist savvy or long term savvy. There are downsides and upsides to both a policy maker has to balance both the near and far. What he may have gotten from them, is to show their hand, so he can make a solid case.
Instead of all these talks, squeeze some balls in the senate. Absolute LBJ way. Go LBJ.
Keep yawning while u sit back doing nothing to stop this chaos from occuring and you’ll be the 1st one saying what happened???…”You obviously don’t get it!!!!!!!!
Is that a joke?..Your not serious?..Your watching too much media lies and worse yet believing them….sad
fee is 1.5 trillion dollars to come from the banks back to Federal Reserve the Amercian Dollar a third world Dollar could this be true and soon Decemeber 2010 it looks like a long and dusty road For the American People
GOOD JOB MR PRESIDENT !
fuck all this noise, i want higher interest rates!
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
We all need to work hard to make a better Union. Never stop going forward.