Since a revolving door was installed at the entrance to the West Wing of the White House, it has been difficult to keep track of the comings and goings in the US’ corridors of power. Anything written about the personnel and policies of the administration of US President Donald Trump might be invalid before it is published.
At least for the time being, the key economic-policy actors remain in place.
Steve Mnuchin is still US secretary of the treasury and has not been mentioned in dispatches during the latest power struggles.
Gary Cohn continues to chair the US National Economic Council, although he is reported to be unhappy about some of the president’s statements on non-economic issues, and, of course, Janet Yellen is still at the helm at the US Federal Reserve, at least until February next year.
However, this stability does not seem to indicate a single settled view on economic and financial policy, particularly the future framework of financial regulation.
A remarkable recent interview in the Financial Times with Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer laid bare some major disagreements.
Central bankers typically make a virtue of understatement and ambiguity.
Fed watchers need to analyze minute differences in wording and tone to identify shifts in thinking.
As former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan famously told a congressional committee: “If I turn out to be particularly clear, you have probably misunderstood what I said.”
So the language used on this occasion by Fischer, normally the mildest and most courteous of men, should cause people to sit up and take notice.
He argued that the US’ political system “may be taking us in a direction that is very dangerous.”
Referring to moves to roll back elements of the new regulatory order established in response to the debacles of 2008 to 2009, he said: “Everybody wants to go back to the status quo before the great financial crisis.”
He declared that “one cannot understand why grown intelligent people reach the conclusion that you should get rid of all the things you have put in place in the last 10 years.”
This is remarkable language, which merits deconstruction.
Fischer cannot possibly mean literally that “everybody” wants to return to the “status quo” ante.
The academic community is mainly in favor of even tighter regulation of banks, with higher capital requirements. With few exceptions, the media is even more hawkish.
Furthermore, I do not know a single bank chairman who thinks that going back to leverage ratios above 40, and tier 1 capital of 2 percent, would make any sense at all.
So who is “everybody” in this formulation?
The phrase reminds me of my mother’s frequent observation that “somebody,” unnamed, had not tidied his bedroom.
I was an only child.
However, here the suspect is not so obvious.
The only concrete proposals to emerge from the administration so far are in a thoughtful paper published in June by the Treasury.
It is true that the paper’s title: A Financial System that Creates Economic Opportunities, has a political flavor, but the specific ideas it floats are not exactly those found on the wilder shores where “free banking” advocates roam.
The authors of the paper — which was signed by Mnuchin himself — want to reform the complex, incoherent and overlapping patchwork of regulatory agencies left in place since the crisis.
Former Fed chair Paul Volcker, hardly a lobbyist for investment banks, has been making the same argument for some time.
The paper also recommends some rationalization of the extremely complex rulebooks, relieving some simpler banks of the most burdensome and costly processes, and reducing the number of required regulatory submissions and stress test exercises.
One can argue about the details, but, overall, this does not look like a return to a pre-crisis free-for-all.
There is no suggestion in the paper that capital requirements should be significantly lowered, although it does recommend that the capital surcharge for systemically important banks should be “re-evaluated.”
The one worrying section, for a non-US reader, concerns international standards, which should be accepted and implemented only if they “meet the needs of the US financial system and the American people.”
Exactly how the latter will be consulted on the calibration of risk weights in the Basel accord is not spelled out.
It is, nonetheless, hard to see why this document should have so rudely disturbed Fischer’s equipoise.
Perhaps he was giving us a glimpse of more fundamental disagreements on financial regulation at the heart of the administration. Or perhaps the Fed itself fears that regulatory rationalization is code for some cutback in its own responsibilities, which have been expanded remarkably since the crisis.
It would be unfortunate if the Fed’s opposition to change prevented a debate on whether, 10 years on, every one of the changes made — often in a tearing hurry — make sense, both individually and collectively. After all, many changes in the competitive environment within which banks operate — new payment systems, peer-to-peer lenders, shadow banks and the rest — require careful analysis and thought.
So the Treasury is surely right to open a debate and it has done so in a thoughtful fashion. Central bankers should take care not to suggest that there is nothing to discuss, that nanny knows best and the children should not ask awkward questions, like: “Why?”
That was never a good way to persuade a teenage boy to keep his room tidy.
It will not work for lawmakers or banks, either.
Howard Davies is chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US