As many answers as experts
Mad finance: can Europe do?
Michel Crinetz, former financial supervisor, collective Roosevelt
Interesting debate the other day in Orleans, organized on this subject by the InstitutJacques Delors, the European Loiret and the Roosevelt collective movement. Interesting because the three invited speakers, if they shared some findings were of a different opinion on the conclusions to be drawn.
Try lighting some arguments exchanged, and pursuing further them.
On the financial crisis first. One said that in fact, the crisis started in 2007 is not over,smouldering under the ashes and may restart at any time. Another felt that if it was,indeed, the case in the eurozone, the crisis was over in the United States since 2009,because the Americans were to immediately, and without skimping, given the means to the curb.
On the nature of the crisis then. For two speakers, it was a crisis of financial first, then become economic and social. For the third, the mainly European crisis was a financial crisis in general, not a crisis actual Bank, due to the excesses of the banks and the weakness of their supervision: If Banking Union has improved things, the strengthening of this supervision is still required, and is not completed.
“One said that in fact, the crisis started in 2007 is not over, smouldering under the ashes and may restart at any time”
For this third speaker, the solution would be to import in Europe, with the necessarymodifications, the system American, much less dependent on banks and much moreanimated by the financial markets, which, admittedly, should regulate also. Anotherquestioned the age-old assertion that the financing of companies are overwhelmingly by banks in Europe, and markets in the United States, but this factual point couldbe clarified during the meeting. Perhaps the American statistics is influenced by thefact that in the United States, an important part of the appropriations is securitized,and so can be found on the financial markets; or is initiated by primary actors who are not registered as banks, as we saw with subprime.
On there faces a classic problem of economic ‘science’: unable to perform demonstrations or experimentation “all things being equal”, be more often just it correlations,which are not true evidence: “it took such action in such country, this country goeswell, so it’s a good measure”. But perhaps what this country is going well for other reasons.
Finally, one speaker suggested half a dozen measures to be taken by Europe. The third speaker was at odds with all, and in particular with the proposal to prohibit all lobbying in Brussels at major banks: “It is contrary to freedom of expression,” he pointed out. Freedom for bankers, replied the first, but the good people had little meansto be heard in Brussels. “If there are Finance Watch”, he replied. But Finance Watcha hundred times less than the big banks, said the first. “This is the problem”, repliedthe third. Okay, but how to solve?
“Unable to perform demonstrations or experiments” all things equal in addition “, be more often just it correlations, which are not real evidence”
In the room, almost full, reactions were mixed. Some found it too technical. Others complained that their still held and speeches, too remote from real life. Remote perhaps, but not without influence, however. A convinced European asked why we had as much trouble to come to an agreement: he was told that each Government came to Brussels not to defend the European interest, but to defend its national champions.
The third speaker mentioned the tension between the responsibility of supervisors and the requirement of democracy. Citizens agree to understand not everything for the operation of nuclear power plants, but appear more reluctant to the complexityof the financial market.
Restive or anxious?