Capital Failure: Basel III Is Not The Success That The Group Of 20 Will Tout It To Be

The New York Times:

The Group of 20 summit for heads of government this weekend will apparently "hail bank reform," particularly as manifest in the Basel III process that has resulted in higher capital requirements for banks. According to leading authorities on the issue, however, the Basel process is closer to a disaster than a success.

Read the whole story: The New York Times

Comments

[PhilipTaylor]

03:03 PM on 11/13/2010

THE BULL CHIT OF THE FED:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k&feature=player_embedded
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAhayy1NGJ0&feature=player_embedded

[Bumpkins]

07:17 PM on 11/11/2010

The same arguement is always used.....the percentage of money the banks have to hold in reserve.....The predatory banks want little assests in reserve...loan out as much as you can.....until it blows up again, and start the same cycle over again. It appears that some or most of the world's leaders are not in our court....why should they......We need to remember we brought about the world's financial crisis...we did it.

[Reno Fickler]

04:58 PM on 11/11/2010

In the early 20th century the US govt deemed several companies (Standard Oil, US Steel, etc) too big to exist on the basis that they had been TOO successful and made too much money.
In the early 21st century the US govt deemed several companies (Wall Street finacial institutions) TOO big to fail on the basis that their practices were deceitful and predatory.
Damned if you do and rewarded if you don't. I kinda wonder what thought processes brought the gov't to their conclusions.

[Earfling]

04:24 PM on 11/11/2010

Brack. Just come home and let's work out our problems here. The world is not close to ready

for globalism. Bring our troops home from everywhere in the world and give them the job of

rebuilding the US infrastructure.

[outnow]

03:46 PM on 11/11/2010

The difference between Obama and a the bankers? You will always have bankers in control. Our Founders realized this but were unable, even with a Constitution, to prevent the inevitable take over. So long as money can buy votes, you will have a Plutocracy. The bankers are not loyal to any country. Money, as with markets, has no conscience. Corporations have no conscience. Multinational corporations have no country and no conscience. So why are these corporations in charge? Money.

[3 magi]

03:33 PM on 11/11/2010

How many rothschildes were in the back room ?

[SiberianRat]

02:40 PM on 11/11/2010

Why is Simon Johnson not Sec. of Treasury?

[northstar11]

02:35 PM on 11/11/2010

banks should not be "rolling the dice"(gambling) ---if they do they should use their own cash

------not the deposits of their customers ---their customers are quite capable of gambling on their own if they so chose

[AeJaa]

01:49 PM on 11/11/2010

This is such an exceptionally well-written, and frankly, common sense, piece.

As such, I am sure the banks will fight every portion of it imaginable, and to preserve their standings with the banks, governments will ignore most of it as well. After all, the point of the mass of populations appears to be restricted to serving as pawns.

[notdarkyet]

12:17 PM on 11/11/2010

It seems the banks are able to hold the whole world hostage to their outrageous demands. We will never learn.

[3 magi]

03:33 PM on 11/11/2010

rothschilde crime family syndicate.

[theaetetus]

11:58 AM on 11/11/2010

keeping equity requirements low is dumb and dangerous and the g20 knows it but i think now its gotten to the point where they are sure some new innovation or catalyzing event is just around the corner and theyll regroup and pour some sanity into the equation when they get there. for now theyre on the we shape reality kick and the people are dumb enough to suffer austerity for our misdeeds so lets keep on trucking!

[thestargazer]

11:32 AM on 11/11/2010

The end of the global ponzi is near!

[randy44]

11:30 AM on 11/11/2010

“If we rush something that then can’t garner popular support that’s going to be a problem,” Obama said. “We think we can make the case but we want to make sure that case is air tight.”

Negotiations reached an impasse over details on how much the South Koreans would open up its market to U.S. goods, namely American cars.

Obama, who is in the homestretch of a nine-day trip to Asia, has made creating American jobs through trade and export deals the crux of his post-election foreign foray. It’s a tough sell for the president at a time of near 10 percent unemployment because many Americans, particularly labor unions, believe U.S. workers suffer when Washington removes trade barriers.

Trade agreements with South Korea, as well as Colombia and Panama, were signed by President George W. Bush but have languished in Congress under opposition from Democrats. Obama, who promised to double the number of U.S. exports over the next five years in his State of the Union address last February, also said this summer that he would work on renegotiating deals with Colombia and Panama.

Whether Obama, who faces a new political dynamic in Washington, can get a deal through the new Congress remains an open question. Divisions remain among Democrats. And while Republicans, including tea party kingmaker, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), have supported unilateral free trade agreements, it’s unclear if they would want to give Obama a policy victory.

[notdarkyet]

12:13 PM on 11/11/2010

The R's said this is one area they can agree with the president. Trade agreements have only hurt us in the past.

[3 magi]

11:14 AM on 11/11/2010

Rothschildes.

[MartyJo]

11:01 AM on 11/11/2010

The joke fake journalist who writes opinion articles, Simon Johnson. Come on Americans. This whole site is geared to slam the President at every turn. There BS generates traffic, hence more $$$$$ for corporate AH.

[Cipo]

04:05 PM on 11/11/2010

You're going to be one of the last to realize you were taken for a ride in 2008, aren't you?9