Five years later, banking still up to same old tricks

Five years after the financial crisis, what have we learned? Could another collapse happen again?

It is possible.

Larry Elliott and Jill Treanor from the Guardian states that another crisis can possibly happen. The former New York City minister, Lord, Myners, says it is not many has changed because “the banks are still too big, too interconnected and too undercapitalized.” He worries that it has only a little changing to prevent another crisis. Alistair Darling, chancellor at the time of the bailouts, also believes the chance of new crisis. “As long as people think they can make money out of nothing,” Alistair states,” it will happen again.”

I believe it takes time for a big business organization to change. In fact, many organizations in banking has been cutting many job positions in order to manage the business. The change has been going but the results were not quite impressive to the public. Many people believe that the little change is caused by the banking culture and the ways banks operate.

I am not working in this industry. I should not judge how the ways banks operate, and I leave this to other professions in the banking industry. However, what I have seen is many banks have been suffering the crisis and have tried to manage the business effectively in the past few years. Although the change was small, but it is still ongoing.

eats shoots 'n leaves

A two-part report from The Real News Network featuring Jessica Desvarieux in conversation for former federal banking regulator William K. Black, who teaches economics and law at the University of Missouri Kansas City focuses on the continued jeopardy embodied in the American banking system.

From The Real News Network:

Five Years After Lehman Brothers Fall, Big Banks Even Larger Pt. 1

From the TRNN transcript:

BLACK: Okay. So these are the systemically dangerous institutions that the administration insists on calling systemically important. But they are dangerous. The administration tells us that when the next one fails, it’s likely to cause a global financial crisis. So the obvious answer was to get rid of them, and the administration has completely refused, as did the Bush administration, as do the other governments in the world, to get rid of these giant institutions.

Why are they bigger? They’re bigger because when the…

View original post 569 more words

When Legal Positivism Goes Wrong

Legal Positivism and Whiteley v. Chapell (1868)

In my other blog post, I summarized that legal positivism is a legal theory that the content of law depends on social facts. Legal positivism sounds important for studying law, but Legal Positivism really that useful in legal system? It can be useful, but the court decision can be absurd and bad. Continue reading

The Most Influential Law Blogs in 2013

Blogging can be fun. You can get many information from different people. Some people like to write food, and some people like to write legal stuff. As in the legal world, it can have many changes and development in the law. While there are many legal blogs, I choose the good ones and cover lots of legal materials. Continue reading

Legal Positivism and Hart’s idea of Law

Few years ago, I wrote an article to summarize the basic idea of legal positivism. The law’s relationship to morality have been discussed for many years. Lawyers regularly make claims about what the law requires in a particular case. Does moral argument enter into them?

Philosophical thought about the nature of law has fallen into two major views. Legal positivism is a view that the law is best understood as a sociological facts and not on its merits. It is only a particular way of structuring social life. For the positivist, it is essential to the nature of law that it can be identified without appeal to controversial moral arguments or debate. Thus, law is identified with positive law. Continue reading