greater regulation on finance and a firmer grip on risk management will mean companies will find it harder to get access to the funds they need to operate.
Not quite. You'd expect the inevitable overshoot into lending paranoia, which is more or less where we are now,
But eventually companies should find it easier to get access to funds. Funds could be made available with less draconian expectations of instant returns. So jobs would be created and wealth could - potentially - be distributed more equitably.
A lot of healthy industries have been destroyed by insane expectations of ever-expanding quarterly growth. One of the easiest ways to create the illusion of growth is to fire people. Relaxing that criterion would create and sustain jobs and allow the real economy to rebound.
Most of the risk has been in property lending. Reducing prices by 50% or 75% would be brutal in the short term, but would have the useful side effect of making housing affordable again. It would also free up disposable income which could be spent on other things, beyond trying to service a mortgage.
A lot of healthy industries have been destroyed by insane expectations of ever-expanding quarterly growth.
You don't have to tell me. I work at a publically traded retailer, who is currently stressing and restressing that each of us squeeze the last penny out of the customer that we can.
I've pushed back on this as much as I can, but I'm already starting to hear grumbles from my managers over my performance. I haven't thrown the NYT in WWI example at them yet, and I'm keeping my mouth shut (at work) about the low regard in which I hold shareholders. (To me, they're no more than gamblers and deserve as much consideration. I've heard the "boss who signs your check" already, but as it wasn't directed at me, I haven't replied, "it's the customer who funds the payroll account and the customer is the only one with any choice in this equation. That should be a fun conversation.) "It Can't Be Just About Us"--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
Too many people in the US believe that businesses should be run as feudal mini-states, and the owner is literally a king. When customers shop, they're nominally guests, but in fact they're really there to pay tribute. (This pretty much explains everything about how IBM, Microsoft, and other corporates do business.)
The concept of symmetrical obligation seems almost completely alien to the Anglo outlook. Whenever it's suggested it's labelled 'socialism' and greeted with grunting, hooting and pointing, shit flinging and simian hysterics.
The US will continue down its fail spiral until a majority of the population outgrows this outlook.
