[...] IV. The foreseeable future of the European banking systems: the banking union
Let me quote Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa once more. He wrote that the old way of thinking along the Westphalian concept of nation-states is no longer suited for policy action when dealing with problems that are transnational, such as the financial crisis. For instance, Europe as a whole does not have large external deficits, or a high indebtedness of the household sector. Yet, it is being penalized by markets because its politicians try to solve the problems along the lines of nation-states.
IV.1. The need for a banking union
From this perspective, the EMU is visibly incomplete. On the one hand, in the absence of a fiscal union, sovereign spreads vary according to market perception. On the other hand, in the absence of a banking union, banks are perceived as contingent liabilities of individual sovereigns.
The EU is presently dealing with the negative feedback loop between banks and sovereigns.
The imperative need to break this vicious circle gave birth to a wide consensus that the banking union is a less controversial and more feasible solution than a fiscal union. It is viewed as a way to place the banking sector on a more sound footing and restore confidence in the euro. It is also viewed as a step towards a fiscal union.
A banking union is also a good answer from the perspective of the so-called “impossible trinity”, which points out that financial stability and financial integration are not compatible with preserving supervision at national level (Schoenmaker, 2011).
IV.2. The project
Now let us turn to what the projected banking union would imply. The current design envisages the banking union as functional for the euro area with an opt-in clause applicable to non-euro area Member States. At this stage, the proposal consists of four complementary pillars.
First, there should be a single rulebook. This means that the members of the banking union should establish and implement a harmonized framework for banking regulation and supervision.
Second, there should be a single supra-national supervisory authority in charge across the union (the main supervisory tasks will be transferred from the national to the European level).
Third, there should be a single bank resolution mechanism to address potential banking crises.
V. By way of conclusion
By way of conclusion, I would say that we should adjust our ways of thinking and acting to the shifting economic and financial reality, rather than force the financial system to embrace a more or less fashionable theoretical approach. Not only the current crisis, but also the troubled history of the banking system reveals that the viable solution is to find a balanced approach between the roles markets and governments have to play in order to put the economy on a smooth growth path. In this context, the financial system reform measures should aim not only at avoiding the outbreak of a new crisis in the future, but also at ensuring that the new architecture of the financial system enhances its ability to support sound economic growth.
Thank you very much for your attention and, last but not least, for your patience. I also appreciate that you accepted that I slipped from the shoes of the President of the Romanian Association of the Club of Rome into the ones of the Governor of the National Bank of Romania.
http://www.bnro.ro/DocumentInformation.aspx?idInfoClass=6885&idDocument=13619&directLink=1
The Romanian Association for The Club of Rome
http://www.clubofrome.ro/arcor/aboutus.php
Mugur Isarescu
Vice Presidents
Mircea Malitza
Sergiu Celac
Ionel Haiduc
Florin Pogonaru
Secretary General
Calin Georgescu
Executive Director
Mugur Tolici
Honorary Members
Ion Iliescu
Emil Constantinescu
LUCIAN LIVIU ALBU
FLORIN COLCEAG
DANIEL DAIANU
CRISTIAN HERA
DINU GIURESCU
TRAIAN MARIAN GOMOIU
MARIUS IOSIFESCU
SOLOMON MARCUS
ALEXANDRU MIRONOV
NICOLAE PANIN
DAN DUMITRU POPESCU
MARIUS SALA
GHEORGHE TEODORESCU
ANTON ANTON
VALENTIN ALEXANDRESCU
NICOLAE DANILA
RADU GRATIAN GHETEA
ALEXANDRU GRUMAZ
VALENTIN LAZEA
SILVIU NEGUT
FLORIN GEORGESCU
CRISTIAN POPA
VIRGIL STOENESCU
VIRGINIA MIRCEA
IOAN RUS
MADLEN SERBAN
DORU BOSTINA
DRAGOS CABAT
CLAUDIU CERCEL
GABRIEL COMANESCU
COSMIN DOBRAN
PETRU DUMITRIU
IONUT DUMITRU
MARIANA GHEORGHE
COMAN GIORGIU
OTILIA MANTA
SERBAN MATEI
MIRCEA PERPELEA
EUGEN POPA
ERNEST POPOVICI
ANDREI POSTELNICU
MIRELA ROMAN
GABRIEL SEBE
CRISTIAN SPORIS
MUGUR STET
BOGDAN URSULEANU
EMIL VONVEA
MARCEL VULPOI
IOANA ZANE
VICTOR ANDREI
AL. NICOLAE PAUNESCU
PETRU RARES
RADU MUNTEANU
DANIEL PITURLEA
LUCIAN ANGHEL
REMUS BENTA
MIRCEA MURESAN
EMILIAN M. DOBRESCU
REMUS PRICOPIE
FLORIAN LIBOCOR
FLORIN RADULESCU
DAN VIOREL PAUL
DAN COSTIN NITESCU
LIVIU TUDOR
ANTON COMANESCU
DUMITRU POPESCU
6 comentarii :
Dinu Giurescu (și alții ca el) are tupeul să vorbească despre interesul național și identitatea națională, fiind în același timp membru în Asociația Română pentru Clubul de la Roma (ARCoR) !
Colcăie de comuniști luați în grijă de globaliști (pt care latră acum).
Ma crucesc!
Clubul de la Roma este o organizatie recunoscuta de statul roman ca ce? Ca ONG care se ocupa de futurologie ?
Nici unii si nici altii nu sunt alesi de noi, sunt numiti, sunt entitati nedemocratice.
Mai ramane ca viitoarea "conferitna" cu Clubul de la Roma sa fie organizata de guvern.
Cine coordonaza BNR ? Guvernul ?
De Clubul de la Roma am auzit inca de pe vremea comunistilor vorbindu-se despre el cu un "respect" ocult.
Asa ca ce sa ne mai miram cand cei de la Inst de Economie Mondiala (unde n-aveai voie sa intri pe vremea lui Ceusescu -cred ca era militarizat), erau deja membri.
Era in anul 1983 cand am auzit de CR
CdR nu este înregistrat în România (nu știu nici de ARCoR), iar scuza care se va invoca va fi că "la BNR s-au mai ținut evenimente, simpozioane, etc."
Sunt curios dacă vor fi interpelări parlamentare.
Nu avem nevoie de guvernator BCR care nu își ocupă 100% timpul de serviciu pentru ajutarea leului și a economiei naționale. Dacă vrea happening-uri, să închirieze-n morții mă-sii o sală.
Foarte corect !
Trimiteți un comentariu