than before the crisis started.
Here's a piece about nobel prize winning economists view that banking problems are worse now than before the crisis.
This quote provokes a few thoughts:
"Stiglitz said the U.S. government is wary of challenging the financial industry because it is politically difficult".
It begs the question, what is politically difficult about challenging
the banks? You would think the banks would be a fat populist target with little voter support. In a democracy where "majority rules" you would think they'd be in a lot of trouble. What makes them difficult to challenge? Is it:
(a) They have a huge number of voters standing behind them like the unions? No,
(b) They control TV and newspapers which shape public debate? No, not directly.
It most be something hidden and sinister. The fact that they got that 700 billion dollar TARP money when voters phoned in against it 100 to 1 shows that the hidden, sinister political power of the banks is very real as Stiglitz alludes. It begs the question, where does this power come from and what hold do the bankers have over our politicians?