Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
By Sanjeev Sabhlok's Occasional Blog-Liberty (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

The imperative to revert banks to unlimited liability

Sunday, December 18, 2011 20:44
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

This is a quick note in response to Timur Kuran’s comment on BBC the other day (here) in which he reminded us that the corporation was the distinguishing institution that underpinned European economic growth and allowed it to overtake the Islamic Ottoman Empire (Islamic law did not encourage such unlimited liability concepts). 

This innovation allowed large infrastructure to be established which was no longer tied to a particular individual’s wealth, and could carry on for generations. But then he also seems to partially agree with opponents in that debate about a “tension” between the otherwise successful model of the corporation and societal risk created by corporations that are “too big to fail”. He referred in particular to the banking sector.

I would like to refine this debate by pointing out that there are no societal risks from large companies like Walmart or large railway companies. Should they go bust, someone will always come by and pick up the ruins if there is any value left in them. Consumers don’t lose anything either, since they aren’t buying the services any longer. A few jobs are lost but that’s the natural part of creative destruction (what I call creative replacement in BFN – see online notes).

On the other hand, and here is the key, there is a big difference between banks and typical service providers like Walmart. A few weeks ago I discovered that banks had unlimited liability till the early 20th century when I suspect the Keynesians, the likely ‘do-gooders’, allowed them to avail the limited liability provisions applicable to ordinary corporations.

Till then they were constrained in growing “excessively” large or taking unnecessary risks because owners were directly and entirely responsible for consequences of bad decisions. Today, the owners (ordinary shareholders) may lose but ordinary customers lose a lot, too, while those who took the bad decisions (CEOs, etc.) get even fatter salaries.

It appears to be absolutely necessary to revert banking to the unlimited liability model of the past, when it worked without creating the risks it does today. It is NOT possible to prudentially regulate banking beyond a point. The owners must take unlimited liability for the bad decisiosn.

It that is done, there will no longer remain any tension between the successful institution of corporations and banks that are too big to fail.

Related posts:

  1. Stefan Molyneux’s deep insight into the regulatory environment of banks
  2. Further proof that central banks must be disbanded
  3. Let’s abolish central banking and revert to free banking – an open-ended research note

Read more at Sanjeev Sabhlok’s Occasional Blog-Economics



Source:

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.