No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Comment: Reform of Financial Institutions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 October 2009
Extract
William Gibson has presented a useful analysis of the Administration's proposals for financial reform, and I have no difficulty concluding with him that they should be passed. But, I find myself in some disagreement with him on a number of matters of interpretation.
- Type
- Reform of Financial Institutions and Markets: A Progress Evaluation
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1974
References
1 See, for example, Meltzer, Allan H., “What the Commission Didn't Recommend,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking (vol. 4, No. 4, November 1972), pp. 1005–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Robinson, Roland I., “The Hunt Commission Report: A Search for Politically Feasible Solutions to the Problems of Financial Structure,” The Journal of Finance (vol. 27, No. 4, September 1972), pp. 765–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 For a seminal analysis of the problem, see Minsky, Hyman P., “Financial Instability Revisited: The Economics of Disaster” Reappraisal of the Federal Reserve Discount Mechanism (vol. 3, June 1972)Google Scholar. The difficulties faced by financial institutions and the difficulties faced by the monetary authority during a period of expansion and inflation are complex and inextricably related. I doubt that the former can be substantially remedied without reference to the latter. But the formulation and implementation of monetary policy is a subject that apparently was beyond the scope of the Administration's analysis of financial reform, as it was also beyond the scope of The Hunt Commission study.
3 Shull, Bernard, “New Competition and Predatory Practices in Commercial Banking,” Banking Law Journal (forthcoming).Google Scholar