Should The U.S. Join A Global Regulatory Body Re Banks?

[Median Democrat]

The NY Times is portraying this as Obama being against bank regulations, but the specific proposal being resisted is to create a "regulatory authority with crossborder authority." A super international FDIC? On the one hand, having such an international authority could help promote free trade, and ease the regulation and growth of international banks. However, it also requires the U.S. to yield control over banks at home the way the U.S. has yielded some control over trade issues.

I am all for more regulation of banks, and reaching agreements with countries on international regulation. But, I am not sure that I want a WTO type bank regulatory agency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/world/europe/03summit.html?_r=1&hp

/snip

The announcements came after negotiators from the United States and Europe worked frantically to hash out an agreement on new regulations, a day after France and Germany signaled a rift over the level of scrutiny that regulators should have over hedge funds and other global financial institutions.

While the United States was determined to resist European efforts to create regulatory authorities with crossborder authority, officials said the two sides worked out policies on transparency and early risk warnings for banks that would placate France and Germany.

“There’s not going to be a ceding of sovereignty to a global regulator,” said a White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations were confidential.

/snip

[blueworld]

1. I agree with the President

The different countries of the world all agree murder is illegal but we don't need a super-agency to enforce that. They argue for weeks over who should sit next to whom at what fete.

Let's agree on the regulations, with transparency - not create another impotent mega-monster agency sucking up money.

[Vidar]

2. Yes.