The Bankers' New Clothes: What's Wrong with Banking and What to Do About it - with Anat Admati 

Plumbers may be confused with this explanation. May I mention the bank of England note that banks create new money in the process of making a loan, ie they do not lend deposits. In the main they lend on asset's that become collateral and in doing so provide new money that increases the "value" of assets; mostly mortgages. Since this is fundamental to the activity of banks I wonder why this is not mentioned?

Understandable that due to contagion, you can't let a large bank fail. However, you could throw board members in prison for criminal negligence (maybe even financial terrorism, if they ran a too big to fail into the ground, shaking the whole system). Further, could easily make equity take a nice haircut, thereby strongly incentivizing shareholders to elect better board members that do not allow obscene risk into the game (never mind make it the new normal).

Such a lovely presenter, and a great group. Her very direct and interesting take on using the standard expectations that CORPORATIONS are expected to conform to should be also to applied to banking CORPORATIONS is almost revelatory as an idea. Much appreciated!

What I learned: buy bitcoin. Limit exposure to banks. Be your own bank.

Stating that _banking / FIRE-sector_ is “above the law” is important. The equally important dialectic would be “how has banking / FIRE-sector *influenced and changed* the law?” Deregulation is a misnomer, as it really means _changing_ legislation - not abandoning it fully. That’s the popular-political narrative, but every parliamentary decision is an action - not an inaction - of legislative change. Ownership IS power - however we tweak our economic models of analysis. Economics need to re-internalise ecology and not expect individuals to always be rational - we’re not. A practice of economics models should be ‘top down’, not ‘bottom up’ - since every individual will exist within the model, not as an externality to it. 😊

Basel specs are all WINDOW DRESSING.

Regarding the commodity question - the point here is that banks have radically similar products - yes you can have different logos on your credit card - and some different terms potential, but banks lend the same dollar that any other bank does. So sure, rate competition - but radically similar products. I'm surprised that focus of the question went over the panel's head. Compare that to say a restaurant - sure, most restaurants serve hamburgers and salads - but these can be dramatically different. Even at similar price points. Take US Mortgage loans - given the underlying structure for Conforming loan sizes, those are virtually identical bank to bank. There may be nominal little promo differences and a few basis points here or there - but you get principally a near identical product. Heck, they probably have damn near the same disclosures (due to regulations/ underlying agencies, etc) outside of changing the rubber stamped corporate name on them.

Banking should be a public utility and shouldn't operate for profits...

Unfortunately, I don't think we can get out of this materialistic crisis if we keep this abstract materialistic mindset.

That first question @ 51 minutes or so - what a question!

Interesting points about limited liability. I think limited liability is very much pointing at the root of the problem. I think those that hold material control should NEVER have unlimited liability. As opposed to those with minority interests the effect virtually zero power on what the corporation (or its agents /employees) do.

What's wrong with banking? The central bank model came into existence in 1694 when the frontman William Paterson contracted with William of Orange for £1,200,000. The Bank of Emgland was given a governmental sounding name of and we were converted to usury debt slaves ever since. Finance capital is too powerful of a pervasive influence where too many are profitting from it to alter course.

His points is all well known but he fails to realize that unfortunately requiring banks to have more equity and less leverage means cost to economic growth and access to credit. Be careful what you ask for. What’s obvious is not.

The hidden context here, is her understanding of the system is much greater than can be relayed in a 30min overview. Didn't help ordinary Joe very much.

Thanks 4 Good Video / Program! Apology; but I lost my way after 2-3 min 😂 and I can't hear about anything "new" is/has happeni!? Unless, of course, as mention we return back to Gold Standard! Still, maybe we all need old thinking to explain latest trends as we don't have invented words for those "trends" yet 🤔 Still, not to disregard but to put it into context! Nothing new only SameSame 😂Greed & Corruption 👋

Her inability to answer questions at the end does make you question the validity of her thesis.

Looks like a dud talk from the comments

Just buy Bitcoin. Solved.

England is much more interesting than America. Why aren't you talking about the UK? Why are they using a British accent to speak American English, which is considered King's English in the UK? Or are you trying to appeal to those people in Midlands, who speak a peculiar dialect which sounds like American English? This isn't what London English sounds like. Be London, in London. adwokat Tomasz Surdej - BAR OF KIELCE, POLAND