Display:
Do you want banking to be a bit more expensive, but safe, or "cheap" and blowing up every now and then?

ie, would you rather pay 2% per year or have massive bailouts every now and then? what's really more expensive to taxpayers?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Oct 13th, 2009 at 05:00:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not my bold.

I see future banking in terms of service provision, not credit intermediation. The only shareholder capital necessary would be that covering operating costs.

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Oct 13th, 2009 at 05:47:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
that question was not specifically for you but more general...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Oct 13th, 2009 at 06:26:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If they don't do better than in the USA then banking will both be more expensive and more risky.
How about a 50% surtax on yearly compensation over the equivalent of US$500,000.00 and an 80% surtax on executive pension fund contributions with the proceeds going into a reserve liquidity fund .  Allow half of what remains unused to be rebated in ten years.  That ought to concentrate their minds on solvency and liquidity.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Oct 13th, 2009 at 11:17:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series