Thanks Integral. =) Minor point is that I write for personal finance blogs and run a personal finance education program.
My application to the new organization has already been sent. I smell opportunity!
My comments I like nudges versus mandates.
It is late and I am tired.
Let me bounce off this if you don't mind.
I'm happy with the financial protection agency idea. I hope its implemented right. I've worked on a few mortgage cases, so I understand what's going on there. There is room to improve oversight there and improve consumer information.
This is your playground, not mine, so I'll limit my comments to the note that mortgage transactions are typically the largest single financial transaction that a household makes. In addition, it tends to be complex; the computational and intellectual burden placed on the household is enormous. There's probably room there for regulations and guidelines that would ease that computational burden. Translation: yeah, you're right.
The larger reserve requirements will slow bank growth down. The tradeoff is hoped to be stability. Keyword : Hoped. I don't know enough to know if this is justified.
Something I know something about! Finally. I think the change in how we deal with leverage in large financial firms was long overdue (see: Basel II -> Basel III).
Many other civilized nations have abolished reserve requirements altogether. I don't think we can go there, and indeed I think such a move would be a Bad Idea given that the relationship between the Fed and our large banks/quasi-banks is fundamentally different from the relationship between, say, the Bank of Canada and Canada's largest financial institutions. Given the way the Fed and FDIC deal with banks, larger capital/reserve requirements probably err on the side of caution. (In addition, given that in the current environment most banks are holding excess reserves at the Fed, such a measure would not necessarily be contractionary.)
Unhappy that the Volcker Rule was watered down, but I understand why and I'm glad something like it is in.
I really need to read up on this. Everyone's throwing the term around and I haven't gotten around to actually figuring out what it would imply.
I don't think it changed the Fed much. Mildly disappointed in it.
the Fed's going through a bit of a soul-searching period right now anyway. Rumor has it that Chairman Bernanke is facing an uphill battle against the regional Fed presidents on the role of the Fed and monetary policy when short-term rates are at 0. There is tentative support to the notion that the Chairman is willing to attempt additional monetary stimulus, but is unable to since he doesn't have the votes to get such measures through the FOMC. (Note to the President: you could help by filling the two vacant FOMC seats! This is an Easy Way to get more stimulus, hinthint. You clearly want more stimulus, but it's guaranteed that you aren't going to get more of it through Congress. I suggest you check out the guy with the helicopter, I think he's on to something.)
I certainly wouldn't want to rock that boat right now. There are enough internal problems as it is.
--
It means I'll agree with you in general but probably disagree on something minor.
It's happened before.
We will then commence to discuss investment and capital gains taxes for three pages.
