ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax
SHARE
so, then, we would all be investing in bank equity and bonds (or holding company equities and bonds) rather than in securities that they produce.
interesting idea, but i don't see how that is any more transparent for the investor. perhaps better from other points of view?
another question i have: if you combine this, plus shut down the big banks and GSEs, and if you reduce the budget deficit to reasonable levels (ie stop printing more treasury bonds), how do you get foreigners to invest in this country? if you don't, wouldn't you expect much higher mortgage rates?
i don't know the answers to these questions, but they need to be clearly thought through. the old system wasn't good, but as they say in california, everything happened for a reason.
thanks.
Couldn't we have a middle ground of, say, 1987, where banks still keep a larger portion of their loans and we don't have lots of 0 down loans out there, but we've still got higher growth potential?
OK, maybe 1987 isn't the best example year, but you get the point.
Does the end of Bretton Woods matter, can we go back to 1967 without global monetary reform?