4 ms·

It is when banks handing out shady mortgages crippled the entire economy and resulted in taxpayers having to shore things up to the tune of trillions of dollars

It is when banks handing out shady mortgages crippled the entire economy and resulted in taxpayers having to shore things up to the tune of trillions of dollars. Some people are either too young to remember or too willful to remember, but 2008 was a dark place, and if it means a marginal impact on whatever destined-to-be-doomed small business is not getting off the ground due to increased scrutiny, I say good deal. Also Mercatus is a part of the Koch-aligned segment of GMU, to save any other onlookers some time understanding why the specific set of survey questions was posed the way they were. EDIT: also a lot of this information is dated because regulations were already weakened for small banks specifically: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-house-banks-lobbying/small-banks-trump-wall-street-on-dodd-frank-rewrite-idUSKCN1IN328 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-house-banks-lobbying/...

CryptoPunk 8y ago
>>if it means a marginal impact on whatever destined-to-be-doomed small business is not getting off the ground due to increased scrutiny, I say good deal. It's not a "marginal impact". Regulations like Dodd-Frank impose a massive structural impediment to smaller business competitiveness that contribute to growing income inequality, and growing consolidation/centralization of industries. The Mercatus study shows just how much it increases costs for smaller banks. And it's not just "destined-to-be-doomed small business" that's eliminated: https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-banks-dodd-frank-000197 https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-bank... >>“Unfortunately, we became a victim of Dodd-Frank,” a northeastern community bank CEO recently wrote me. “In a few short years, an otherwise healthy community bank with strong capital and satisfactory earnings could no longer meet a number of financial benchmarks set by the regulators. These conclusions forced the bank to sell now when our shareholders and some of our employees would be less adversely affected.” The result: the bank merged with a larger bank and half of the employees lost their jobs. There are government programs like the GSEs and the FDIC that promote irresponsible mortgage lending. Those should be targeted for reform/elimination before centralizing and regimenting the industry with labyrinth laws like Dodd-Frank is considered.
- awinder 8y ago
  What part of FDIC do you find to promote irresponsible mortgage lending? And that’s another story from before the regulation was re-targeted to lessen the burden on small banks
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    The FDIC protects depositors whose banks engage in irresponsible mortgage lending. It erodes the micro-economic incentives for creditor discipline that derive from 'skin in the game'. As for the partial roll-back, it's better than nothing, but we'll see in five years if it will have much of an impact: https://bankdirector.com/issues/regulation/crapo-bill-only-drop-bucket-deregulation/ https://bankdirector.com/issues/regulation/crapo-bill-only-d...
    - awinder 8y ago
      And you know the history of what happens when FDIC doesn’t exist I assume, which was that banks acted the same way and regular people got washed out.

CryptoPunk 8y ago

>>if it means a marginal impact on whatever destined-to-be-doomed small business is not getting off the ground due to increased scrutiny, I say good deal. It's not a "marginal impact". Regulations like Dodd-Frank impose a massive structural impediment to smaller business competitiveness that contribute to growing income inequality, and growing consolidation/centralization of industries. The Mercatus study shows just how much it increases costs for smaller banks. And it's not just "destined-to-be-doomed small business" that's eliminated: https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-banks-dodd-frank-000197 https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-bank... >>“Unfortunately, we became a victim of Dodd-Frank,” a northeastern community bank CEO recently wrote me. “In a few short years, an otherwise healthy community bank with strong capital and satisfactory earnings could no longer meet a number of financial benchmarks set by the regulators. These conclusions forced the bank to sell now when our shareholders and some of our employees would be less adversely affected.” The result: the bank merged with a larger bank and half of the employees lost their jobs. There are government programs like the GSEs and the FDIC that promote irresponsible mortgage lending. Those should be targeted for reform/elimination before centralizing and regimenting the industry with labyrinth laws like Dodd-Frank is considered.

awinder 8y ago
What part of FDIC do you find to promote irresponsible mortgage lending? And that’s another story from before the regulation was re-targeted to lessen the burden on small banks
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  The FDIC protects depositors whose banks engage in irresponsible mortgage lending. It erodes the micro-economic incentives for creditor discipline that derive from 'skin in the game'. As for the partial roll-back, it's better than nothing, but we'll see in five years if it will have much of an impact: https://bankdirector.com/issues/regulation/crapo-bill-only-drop-bucket-deregulation/ https://bankdirector.com/issues/regulation/crapo-bill-only-d...
  - awinder 8y ago
    And you know the history of what happens when FDIC doesn’t exist I assume, which was that banks acted the same way and regular people got washed out.