Buttonwood
Attacking your creditors is an
intriguing strategy
“war on finance”=“war on terror”
“vulture
capitalists”=”terrorists”
similar
uncertainty about how to define victory.
Discussion topics:
- Why do the people especially politicians have complaints on finance?
- Where is the goal? What is the victory? Is it a win-win game?
- Also I would like to talk about using dormant bank accounts(休眠口座)
Summary:
Three
main beefs(不平不満) that politicians have with the
financial sector
1.
Bankers earn too much.
2. Banks take reckless risks and then need rescuing by
governments.
3. Investors in financial markets have undue influence over
an economy.
1. Redistributive taxation
People do
not worry too much about footballers’ high pay. Why the people attack bankers is
because of the extent to which they are subsidised by explicit and implicit taxpayer
support.
2. Higher capital ratios
The problem of banks being “too big to fail” is being addressed by higher
capital ratios. Higher
capital ratios should mean lower returns on equity. So the bank bosses are
harder to gain high payments because the pay of bank bosses correlated well
with returns on equity, but not with returns on assets.
3. Politics and the markets
The political message seems to be:
“We hate private-sector creditors. We will penalise you
by defaulting on your debts but not on debts to official creditors. We will
endeavour to stop you protecting yourselves against our actions by making it
difficult to collect on insurance in the credit-default-swaps market. Now, can
we please borrow some money at a very cheap rate?”
What happens to countries like Greece which lose access
to private- sector finance?
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿