hen it comes to reforming Wall Street pay, said Paul Krugman in The New York Times, President Obama needs to “get over” his “visceral reluctance to engage in anything that resembles populist rhetoric.” Backing emerging Federal Reserve plans to make banks rein in “obscene bonuses” and link pay to long-term gains is good politics—everyone’s angry at bankers—but also good economics: It’s the “single best thing we can do to prevent another financial crisis.”
Any “attack on bank bonuses” is sure to be a “reliable crowd-pleaser,” said Christopher Swann in Reuters, but there are much better ways to “control risk-taking” than this “populist flourish” from the Fed. Making banks keep much larger capital reserves, for example, would curb both risk-taking and overall bank pay. Besides, the “notoriously spineless” Fed is no match for the banks’ “armies of lawyers dedicated to gaming the regulatory system.”
“The big issue isn’t that bankers get paid too much,” anyway, said Kevin Drum in Mother Jones. It’s that “banks make too much money by engaging in risky practices.” If the Fed, say, pushed the large banks out of the securities-trading business, they would be “forced to make money by providing actual useful services to the rest of the business community,” and the pay issue would “sort itself out.”
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- Why are so many elderly Asians killing themselves?
- What would a U.S.-Russia war look like
- Driverless cars may be an environmental disaster
- Why I'm sick and tired of seeing naked women on HBO
- Why ABC threw its Bachelor under the bus
- What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?
- Why Ted Cruz is the real-life Frank Underwood
- Here's proof that Justin Bieber is just as spoiled as you always thought
- Watch Zach Galifianakis get annoyed at President Obama on Between Two Ferns
- 4 easy ways to resolve life's toughest questions
Subscribe to the Week