Este candidato republicano, Jon Huntsman, que era diferente dos outros, isso já tinha percebido - foi o único a afirmar que não questiona o aquecimento global e a nossa responsabilidade nele; a sua posição sobre a tese que "os grandes bancos não podem falir" confirma-o; que as suas hipóteses de ser nomeado, por isso mesmo, são diminutas, tal não oferece dúvidas; mas que acalenta um tanto ao quanto as perspectivas sobre como isto tudo pode evoluir, isso acalenta. Enfim ... No texto existe uma referência interessante, mas que ecoa como verdadeira, aos problemas da zona Euro: Fifth, the eurozone is on the verge of calamity in large part because they built very large banks with huge implicit subsidies – and this facilitated an irresponsible accumulation of public sector debt.
Estava a escrever isto e revisitei o artigo no Baseline Scenário, para ir copiar a referência à zona Euro e li o primeiro comentário. Não Posso deixar de o reproduzir: "A Republican showing enough intelligence to speak out against fraud and regulatory capture by Too Systemically Threatening To Fail (TSTF) banks and Muammar Gaddafi being caught, both happening in a 36 hour period!?!?!?!?!?! Geez, this keeps up and I’m going to start feeling hope for this country. I don’tremember drinking any Gin this morning….. ? hmmm……."
The idea that big banks damage the broader economy has considerable resonance on the intellectual right. Tom Hoenig, recently retired president of the Kansas City Fed, has been our clearest official voice on this topic. And Gene Fama, father of the efficient markets view of finance, said on CNBC last year, that having banks that are too big to fail is “perverting activities and incentives” in financial markets – giving big financial firms, “a license to increase risk; where the taxpayers will bear the downside and firms will bear the upside.”The mainstream political right, however, has been reluctant to take on the issue.
This changed on Wednesday, with a very clear statement by Jon Huntsman in the Wall Street Journal on regulatory capture and its consequences. Before the 2008 financial crisis: “The largest banks were pushing hard to take more risk at taxpayers’ expense.” And now,
“More than three years after the crisis and the accompanying bailouts, the six largest American financial institutions are significantly bigger than they were before the crisis, having been encouraged to snap up Bear Stearns and other competitors at bargain prices. These banks now have assets worth over 66% of gross domestic product—at least $9.4 trillion, up from 20% of GDP in the 1990s. There is no evidence that institutions of this size add sufficient value to offset the systemic risk they pose.” This message could work politically, for five reasons [....]