Pubblico un importante articolo del prof. Black. Se qualcuno volesse tradurlo a beneficio del pubblico italiano farebbe cosa buona e giusta

    The media have framed President Barack Obama’s nomination of Janet Yellen to head the Federal Reserve as a gender story. But Obama nominated her to succeed outgoing Fed chairman Ben Bernanke despite her gender, not because of it. The president turned to Yellen only after floating the idea of nominating Larry Summers — a former director of his National Economic Council — only to see it rejected by key members of Congress. The whole media narrative about Yellen’s nomination demands an overhaul.

    In fact, she was so obviously suited to the job that the truly remarkable thing about the president’s decision is why he took so long to make it. His resistance to Yellen in favor of Summers demonstrates the corrupting influence of the financial world — a male-dominated industry.

    Here are three further aspects of Yellen’s nomination as striking as her gender: One, she is the first Democrat nominated by a Democratic President to run the Fed in 34 years. President Bill Clinton twice reappointed Republican Alan Greenspan. Obama reappointed Bernanke, also a Republican. The last Democratic president to appoint a Democrat to run the Fed was Jimmy Carter in 1979.

    Second, Yellen is the first progressive nominated to run the Fed since Marriner Eccles was nominated for his first term 80 years ago, in 1934. (He served until 1948.) The only reason she was nominated was that progressive Senate Democrats were not cowed by the White House and blocked Summers’ nomination.

    Third, Yellen could become the first Fed leader in its 100-year history to make regulation a top agency priority.

    Anti-meritocratic boys’ club

    That Yellen, if confirmed, would become the first female Fed chair is noteworthy — though not simply for that reason. More important, it  demonstrates anew that while we tend to think of fields like the military as bastions of sexism, it is actually finance that stands out as a last refuge of those that demean women’s abilities.

    The economist Tyler Cowen claims that America is rapidly becoming a hypermeritocracy and that the elite bankers are the vanguard of this movement. The reality, however, is that many financiers became wealthy through orchestrating the frauds that wrecked the global economy. The elite bankers’ real expertise is destroying trillions of dollars of wealth and the jobs of tens of millions of people. They would be swept away, rather than fawned over, if finance were even modestly meritocratic.

    The story of why finance is anti-meritocratic has to do in part with its persistent sexism. Finance remains an old boys’ club of men without merit banding together to minimize competition from meritorious women. It was Summers, Obama’s first choice to run the Fed, of course, who suggested in analogous circumstances that women do not excel in science because they lack the intellect to rise to the top of a hypermeritocracy. His nomination was publicly endorsed by male friends and associates who were, like him, insiders in government and finance. In one such endorsement, Cass Sunstein, Obama’s former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, bizarrely claimed that such support by close male friends was a “paradox.”

    Yellen was the obvious choice as Bernanke’s successor. She holds the No. 2 position at the Fed. She had two stints as a governor of the Federal Reserve. She has chaired the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. She was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. She has neither been involved in scandal nor made any famously stupid comments in any of these four senior positions. She did not push policies that proved disastrous. A study by the Wall Street Journal found that she was the most accurate economic prognosticator of any Fed leader.

    Despite her record of extreme competence and integrity, she was not Obama’s top choice to lead the Fed. Instead, Summers was favored by the president and each of his six primary economic advisers. Summers was known for scandal and famously embarrassing comments and for championing a series of disastrous antiregulatory policies that led to the financial crisis. Obama’s preference was all the more remarkable because it was accompanied by claims that he wanted to appoint someone who would make vigorous regulation a top Fed priority. Summers was, by contrast, the Democratic economist most infamous for weakening and deriding regulation and trivializing the risk of white-collar fraud. He would have been the perfect nominee for a president who wanted to continue the lax regulatory era of the previous Fed chiefs.

    The novelty of Fed regulation

    To understand the novelty that the Fed would take regulation and fraud by elite bankers seriously, one must understand that for a quarter-century Greenspan and Bernanke fought effective regulation. Greenspan praised the global competition in regulatory laxity that gutted effective oversight in the U.S. and Europe. Greenspan did not believe that there should even be laws against financial fraud.

    Brooksley Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission during the Clinton administration, recalled in an interview with the Stanford alumni magazine a conversation she had in 1996 with Greenspan, then the Fed chair:

    “Well, Brooksley, I guess you and I will never agree about fraud,” Born … remembers Greenspan saying.

    “What is there not to agree on?” Born says she replied.

    “Well, you probably will always believe there should be laws against fraud, and I don’t think there is any need for a law against fraud,” she recalls. Greenspan, Born says, believed the market would take care of itself.

    Greenspan, along with allies Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and then–Deputy Treasury Secretary Summers, later defeated Born’s attempt to regulate derivatives — a key financial product — as part of the CFTC’s mission. The subsequent lack of regulatory oversight of derivatives contributed to the financial crisis.

    A Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report reveals that the Fed’s top supervisor twice received permission to brief the Fed’s senior leaders about massive fraud by the megabanks that he believed posed a severe danger. Both briefings left Greenspan enraged at the Fed’s supervisors for daring to criticize the largest banks. In fact, he was so convinced that fraud could not exist that he refused to allow the Fed examiners to find the facts about the pervasiveness of so-called liar’s loans — loans that were overwhelmingly fraudulent because they were made without verifying vital information about the borrowers — that many of the largest banks’ affiliates were making. Greenspan also refused to use the Fed’s unique statutory authority to prohibit such loans, despite their role in hyperinflating the housing bubble.


    It is vital that the new Fed chair make her top priority the creation of the first effective regulatory system in the Fed’s 100-year history.

    Had Greenspan used that authority, there would have been no crisis. This is not hypothetical. During the savings-and-loan crisis, I and fellow regional S&L regulators with jurisdiction over Orange County, Calif., drove liar’s loans (called no-doc loans at the time) out of the S&L industry in 1991 because we realized that they were inherently fraudulent and certain to cause losses to the federally insured banks while making the banks’ controlling officers wealthy. The Fed had the benefit of our regulatory experience and analytics, numerous warnings that such loans were overwhelmingly fraudulent and growing massively (by over 500 percent from 2003 to 2006), and the fact that by 2000, industry players themselves called them liar’s loans — which lacks a certain subtlety. Only someone blinded by ideology to detest all regulation — someone like Greenspan — would refuse to ban liar’s loans.

    Bernanke was appointed as Greenspan’s successor in early 2006. He, too, refused to ban liar’s loans, until succumbing to intense congressional pressure in July 2008 (by which time virtually no lenders made liar’s loans). Even then, he delayed the effective date of the rule by 15 months to ensure that he would not inconvenience the industry. To guarantee that he would never have to be troubled by the Fed’s top supervisor’s criticizing the largest banks for fraudulent lending, Bernanke put Patrick Parkinson, a Fed economist, in charge of supervision. Parkinson had no regulatory experience or expertise and was infamous for leading the deregulatory charge that created the barrier forbidding any federal or state official from regulating financial derivatives. The Fed economist supported Greenspan’s absurd claim, echoed by Summers, that fraud was impossible because the firms trading financial derivatives were too “sophisticated” to be duped.

    Controlling Wall Street

    This background shows how vital it is that the new Fed chair make her top priority the creation of the first effective regulatory system in the Fed’s 100-year history.

    The same history, however, demonstrates how bizarre it was that Obama and his top advisers preferred Summers to Yellen. Summers had the advantage of being male, and he also had the advantage, along with Obama’s six top economic advisers, of being a protégé of Robert Rubin — a former Treasury Secretary under Clinton and the leader of the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party. Both Clinton and Obama are fervent supporters of that wing and were recipients of campaign donations from it, which explains why they appointed Republicans Greenspan and Bernanke to run the Fed. They were not reappointed despite their absurd positions that banking fraud could not exist and that financial regulation is harmful and should be dramatically reduced because financial markets are self-correcting. Rather, they were reappointed because the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party shared those positions. That wing also encouraged the deregulatory push that destroyed effective oversight in the U.S. and Europe.

    If Yellen genuinely intends — as she should — to make the creation of a vigorous regulatory system a top Fed priority, she will announce that goal and then pursue the following:

    1. Appoint a new head of supervision who has supervisory expertise and a track record as a vigorous regulator.

    2. Propose that Congress end the conflict of interest built into the Fed system in which bank examiners and supervisors are employees of the regional Federal Reserve Banks — which are, in turn, owned by the banks they are supposed to regulate.

    3. Support the elimination, through dramatic reduction in size, of too-big-to-fail banks, or systemically dangerous institutions that threaten the stability of the U.S. and global economies.

    4. Support the restoration of Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era law that separated commercial and investment banks.

    5. Support the repeal of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000, the law supported by Rubin, Greenspan and Summers that bars the regulation of derivatives, the financial products that were responsible for the financial crisis.

    6.Train Fed staff and officials, particularly economists, about control fraud— the dangerous situation in which a CEO uses his power to induce subordinates to commit accounting fraud and other crimes for the personal enrichment of himself and cronies at the expense of shareholders and the government. A good start would be to require that they all read George Akerlof and Paul Romer’s 1993 article about how bank CEOs “loot” their banks and why deregulation is “bound to” lead to widespread looting. (Note: Yellen and Akerlof are spouses.)

    7. Create a new senior Fed position: chief criminologist — i.e., someone who understands the perverse incentives, lax regulatory environment and criminal techniques that lead to control fraud.

    I am hopeful that Yellen will support all these measures, but I believe that she will likely implement only the first and sixth reforms on my list. The smart bet has always been on the Fed’s not taking bank fraud or supervision seriously. But if this bet finally fails to pay out for elite bankers, it will be a tremendous boon for the country.

    William K. Black

    Categorie: Economia, Esteri

    6 Commenti

    1. [...] Pubblico un importante articolo del prof. Black. Se qualcuno volesse tradurlo a beneficio del pubblico italiano farebbe cosa buona e giusta The media have framed President Barack Obama’s nomination of Janet Yellen to head the Federal Reserve as a gender story. But Obama nominated her to succeed outgoing Fed chairman Ben Bernanke despite her gender, not because of it. The president turned to Yellen only after floating the idea of nominating Larry Summers — a former director of his National Economic Council — only to see it rejected by key members of Congress. The whole media narrative about Yellen’s nomination demands an overhaul. In Leggi la notizia [...]

    2. [...] Pubblico un importante articolo del prof. Black. Se qualcuno volesse tradurlo a beneficio del pubblico italiano farebbe cosa buona e giusta The media have framed President Barack Obama’s nomination of Janet Yellen to head the Federal Reserve as a gender story. But Obama nominated her to succeed outgoing Fed chairman Ben Bernanke despite her gender, not because of it. The president turned to Yellen only after floating the idea of nominating Larry Summers — a former director of his National Economic Council — only to see it rejected by key members of Congress. The whole media narrative about Yellen’s nomination demands an overhaul. In Leggi la notizia [...]

    3. Petronius scrive:

      Intanto ve lo riassumo che è troppo lungo.

      Black dice che è contento che sia stata eletta una donna in un ambiente maschilista e falsamente meritocratico per colpa degli intrighi dell’élite dei banchieri.
      Scrive che Obama voleva Summers e lo aveva proposto informalmente ma dei membri chiave del Congresso hanno rifiutato.
      B. sostiene che la scelta di Summers da parte di Obama è significativa perché S. è un pessimo elemento; la cosa paradossale è che il Presidente voleva nominarlo come severo regolatore mentre si tratta di un individuo noto per aver spesso ridicolizzato la figura del controllore in campo finanziario.
      Lo stesso Greenspan, “accecato dall’ideologia”, non voleva regolatori e questa è una delle principali cause della crisi.
      Bernanke idem, avendo nominato come regolatore P. Parkinson, una persona senza esperienza nel campo dei controlli e anzi noto per le sue posizioni anti controllo dei derivati.
      In sostanza la Federal Reserve non ha mai avuto controllori seri in 100 anni.
      Black sostiene che Obama voleva nominare Summers perché fa parte dell’ala di Wall Street dei Democratici che lo ha finanziato in campagna elettorale.

      Quindi la parte importante.

      Se la Yellen vuole veramente – e probabilmente lo vuole – creare un sistema di regolamentazioni serie dovrà annunciare i seguenti punti programmatici:

      1) Nominare un capo supervisore con esperienza e curriculum di severo controllore

      2) Proporre che il Congresso si sbarazzi del conflitto di interessi costruito attorno alla Fed per cui i controllori delle banche e i supervisori sono impiegati delle Banche Federali Regionali, le quali a loro volta sono proprietà proprio delle banche che dovrebbero essere controllate.

      3) Sostenere la eliminazione, mediante una drastica riduzione delle dimensioni, delle banche “troppo grandi per fallire” ossia istituzioni sistemicamente pericolose che minacciano la stabilità degli USA e dell’economia globale.

      4) Sostenere il ripristino del Glass Steagall Act, la legge dell’era della Depressione post 1929 che separava le banche commerciali da quelle d’investimento

      5) Sostenere il ripudio del Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000, la legge proposta da Rubin (capo dell’ala Wall Street dei Democratici) che impedisce la regolamentazione dei derivati, i prodotti finanziari responsabili della crisi.

      7) Creare una nuova posizione alla Fed: “capo crimonologo”, ossia uno che capisca i perversi incentivi, il contesto lassista anti regolazione e le tecniche criminali in modo da poter controllare meglio le frodi.

      Conclude Black: spero che la Yellen sostenga tutte queste misure, ma credo che probabilmente implementerà solo la 1 e la 6. La scommessa furbetta è sempre stata quella che la Fed non avrebbe mai preso contromisure efficaci contro le frodi. Ma se questa scommessa dell’élite dei banchieri finirà di pagare [cioè se la Yellen istituzionalizzerà delle forme di controllo serio] sarà uno straordinario beneficio per il Paese.

      • alessandro scrive:

        Grazie del riassunto. Certo che se si attuasse solo la 1° e la 6° riforma sarebbe un pò pochino. A proposito Petronius ti sei dimenticato di tradurre proprio la sesta! passi dalla quinta alla settima… è uno scherzo o un lapsus freudiano? :-)
        Comunque è notizia di oggi la nomina di un Keynesiano fra i tre Nobel all’economia: Shiller, quello che ha previsto la crisi americana. Gli altri sono Fama e Hansen.

    4. Petronius scrive:

      La sei, che avevo omesso.

      Addestrare staff e funzionari della FED, in particolare economisti, sul controllo delle frodi – la sitazione pericolosa in cui un Amministratore Delegato usa il suo potere per indurre i subordinati a commettere frodi contabili e altri crimini per il suo arricchimento personale e per favoritismi a spese degli azionisti e del governo. Un buon inizio sarebbe di esigere che tutti leggano l’articolo del 1933 di George Akerlof e Paul Romersu come gli AD saccheggiano le loro banche e perché la deregulation porta automaticamente a maggiori saccheggi (Nota: Yellen e Akerlof sono marito e moglie).

    5. Petronius scrive:

      1993 non 1933

    Commenta


    "nella mia vita ho conosciuto farabutti che non erano moralisti ma raramente dei moralisti che non erano farabutti." (Indro Montanelli)


    LA NOSTRA COSTITUZIONE E’...

    Scritto il 9 - nov - 2018

    1 Commento

    LA PARABOLA DI TRUMP,...

    Scritto il 7 - nov - 2018

    1 Commento

    NEL 2019 SCATTERA’ IL...

    Scritto il 2 - nov - 2018

    3 Commenti

    IL GOVERNO IGNORI IL...

    Scritto il 1 - nov - 2018

    1 Commento

    LA GUERRA DI PIERO

    Scritto il 28 - nov - 2011

    4 Comment1

    SENZA VERGOGNA

    Scritto il 25 - ott - 2011

    0 Commenti

    TEUTOBURGO IN CHIAVE MODERNA

    Scritto il 23 - nov - 2011

    1 Commento

    LE PRIMARIE DEL PD:...

    Scritto il 29 - ott - 2013

    5 Comment1

    SINISTRA NEGRIERA

    Scritto il 20 - ott - 2011

    0 Commenti

    • Chi è il moralista

      Francesco Maria Toscano, nato a Gioia Tauro il 28/05/1979 è giornalista pubblicista e avvocato. Ha scritto per Luigi Pellegrini Editore il saggio storico politico "Capolinea". Ha collaborato con la "Gazzetta del Sud" ed è opinionista politico per la trasmissione televisiva "Perfidia" in onda su Telespazio Calabria.

    • Cos’è il moralista

      Sito di approfondimento politico, storico e culturale. Si occupa di temi di attualità con uno sguardo libero e disincantato sulle cose. Il Moralista è un personaggio complesso, indeciso tra l'accettazione di una indigeribile realtà e il desiderio di contribuire alla creazione di una società capace di riscoprire sentimenti nobili. Ogni giorno il Moralista commenterà le notizie che la cronaca propone col piglio di chi non deve servire nessuno se non la ricerca della verità. Una ricerca naturalmente relativa e quindi soggettiva, ma onesta e leale.

    • Disclaimer

      ilmoralista.it è un sito web con aggiornamenti aperiodici non a scopo di lucro, non rientrante nella categoria di Prodotto Editoriale secondo la Legge n.62 del 7 marzo 2001. Tutti i contenuti appartengono ai relativi proprietari, qualora voleste richiedere la rimozione di un contenuto a voi appartenente siete pregati di contattarci tramite la apposita pagina.