Should US Join An International Bank Regulatory Body Like The WTO?

[Median Democrat]

The NY Times is portraying this as Obama being against bank regulations, but the specific proposal being resisted is to create a "regulatory authority with crossborder authority." A super international FDIC? On the one hand, having such an international authority could help promote free trade, and ease the regulation and growth of international banks. However, it also requires the U.S. to yield control over banks at home.

I am all for more regulation of banks, and reaching agreements with countries on international regulation. But, I am not sure that I want a WTO type bank regulatory agency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/world/europe/03summit.html?_r=1&hp

/snip

The announcements came after negotiators from the United States and Europe worked frantically to hash out an agreement on new regulations, a day after France and Germany signaled a rift over the level of scrutiny that regulators should have over hedge funds and other global financial institutions.

While the United States was determined to resist European efforts to create regulatory authorities with crossborder authority, officials said the two sides worked out policies on transparency and early risk warnings for banks that would placate France and Germany.

“There’s not going to be a ceding of sovereignty to a global regulator,” said a White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations were confidential.

/snip

[lxlxlxl]

1. If globalized capital is going to run the world, then yes, i support global regulatory bodies

on a political level, if our wall st./finance behemoths have the power not only to screw American citizens, but the companies and governments of poor countries, then I do not want them exercising that type of power under an american flag.

too bad this country has been spoonfed 'global government' paranoia, without realizing that in fact the dollar is the Global Currency, and our investment firms dictate international economics and commerce.

[Median Democrat]

3. I Am Not Sure I Support Facilitating Bigger Banks

I think part of the problem we have is the too big to fail banks. Also, creating such a global regulatory body also means ceding some control over the ability to use monetary policy domestically. Look at the paralization of the European Union over how to respond to the current recession.

Also, what about accountability? When the WTO dings U.S. subsidies as protectionist, what is the recourse of American voters?

I do support increased regulation, but to me, a global regulatory body is a power play, pure and simple.

[OHdem10]

2. You either have Globalization or you do not. Right now Money,Workers

and Products whirl around the world so fast it can make your
head spin.

If this is to continue eventually there must be some type of
International Oversight Body. Simply continuing to operate
as we do presently will mean more and more disasters. Put yourself
in other country's position. Each country regulating themselves
is not fair. Unless rules are similar and a way to hold people
accountable is available, trust among countries will go away.
No trust and eventually Globalization fails.

I find it absolutely these bankers want to keep soveignty and
their home rules. These same bankers push to send jobs overseas
and bringing cheap labor here. Some how they always end up
practicing Protectionism for themselves.

Personally, I have disappointed in how Globalization (Trade) has
been handled.

In time, they will have to have some type International Oversight
Body or Globalization will fall.

[JDPriestly]

4. How do you make such a body democratic? As it is, there is an

ad hoc very loose regulation on certain aspects of world trade. It is strictly run by big business. How do you give all workers and all retirees and all people a voice in regulating world trade.

I am against this because I don't see how it is compatible with democratic governance. If you think voting machines are corruptible, just think about elections in Timbuktu.

I don't have an alternative other than returning to more protectionist policies and less international trade. International trade could be based on on one-on-one nation-to-nation agreements as it was in the past. A return to that is one option. What is going on at the moment with big money pulling dirty tricks in one country after the other has to stop. There is no question about that.

[Median Democrat]

6. We either have a sovereign nation, or we do not.

I think the Obama administrations approach is fine of beefing up regulations at home, and increasing international coordination. However, what makes me nervous is giving an international body enforcement authority. We either have a sovereign nation, or we do not.

I see the need for standardization of regulations and greater transparency. That is fine. However, why give an international body regulatory authority over sovereign states? This is what I don't see the need for. It only diminishes the control of countries over their domestic affairs, particularly as to monetary policy.

Also, what do you do about accountability? You think it is tough to hold the Fed accountable. What about a global regulatory body?

[leftstreet]

5. Who cares. We should be more concerned about organizing Global Labor

Yet the M$M keeps us occupied worrying about the interests of the Ruling Class.

pfft.

[Median Democrat]

7. I Can't See Some Global Bank Regulator Being Senstive To The Needs Of Workers

I am not crazy about huge mega banks, and I don't want to further legitimize them. Call me naive, but I think we need to fight against huge global banking conglomerates, not facilitate their operation by creating an independent regulatory body that is not accountable to the American people.

Look at the WTO. If we the American people don't like their rulings, what is our recourse?