[DRAFT] NEW PROPOSAL REGULATION FINANCIAL SYSTEM

[Republic Denmark]

These regulations are put up just to overcome the same situation in the future. This was intended with such kind of resolutions.

> European Union goes bankrupt due to excessive government regulation and intervention on banking system.

> Solution? Ehm, lets intervene more and blame deregulated banking market.

The deregulated system of the usa causes the problem of the banking sector and high risky Investments. After the crisis the choose to regulate the system and at this moment the banking system us recovering. The problem is that system was to much deragulated.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The deregulated system of the usa causes the problem of the banking sector and high risky Investments. After the crisis the choose to regulate the system and at this moment the banking system us recovering. The problem is that system was to much deragulated.

No, it doesn't. High risk-taking by financial institutions is caused by three major factors: (1) FDIC insurance which means that people don't do any vetting on the banks with which they put their money, (2) central bank time-inconsistency issues which lead to moral hazard, and (3) shareholder demand for high rates of return on equity.

The removal of some of the regulations spoken about, which consume billions of dollars annually, would lead to lower entry costs that then lead to greater competition in credit markets. The only reason why monopolistic competition and the 'too big to fail' concept emerged is because of increasing returns to scale in banking institutions, itself a result of government regulations on financial institutions.

Furthermore, the point of financial institutions is to take on risk. They provide the needed service of moving savings from where risk-averse people have them to where risk takers will use them. This allows for the expansion of capital stock, the financing of new technologies, etc. This is where growth emerges. Creation of a system that restricts that investment to a trickle doesn't help anyone. Secondarily, the cause of recent recessions doesn't emerge from risk-taking. It emerged from the lack of ability for banks to effective absorb shocks to their portfolio asset values. Regulation doesn't change the risk-taking calculus, it simply changes the impacts of risk-taking.

[Republic Denmark]

The deregulated system of the usa causes the problem of the banking sector and high risky Investments. After the crisis the choose to regulate the system and at this moment the banking system us recovering. The problem is that system was to much deragulated.

No, it doesn't. High risk-taking by financial institutions is caused by three major factors: (1) FDIC insurance which means that people don't do any vetting on the banks with which they put their money, (2) central bank time-inconsistency issues which lead to moral hazard, and (3) shareholder demand for high rates of return on equity.

The removal of some of the regulations spoken about, which consume billions of dollars annually, would lead to lower entry costs that then lead to greater competition in credit markets. The only reason why monopolistic competition and the 'too big to fail' concept emerged is because of increasing returns to scale in banking institutions, itself a result of government regulations on financial institutions.

Thats your opinion that doesn't mean that the proposal is bad. I think you should regulate the system, because when it was regulated, there where less economical recessions. When Franklin D. Roosevelt regulated the financial system after the depression of the 30s the financial system was safer. After the deregulation started, more crisis happend and more intervening of the government in the financial system.

[Republic Denmark]

The deregulated system of the usa causes the problem of the banking sector and high risky Investments. After the crisis the choose to regulate the system and at this moment the banking system us recovering. The problem is that system was to much deragulated.

No, it doesn't. High risk-taking by financial institutions is caused by three major factors: (1) FDIC insurance which means that people don't do any vetting on the banks with which they put their money, (2) central bank time-inconsistency issues which lead to moral hazard, and (3) shareholder demand for high rates of return on equity.

The removal of some of the regulations spoken about, which consume billions of dollars annually, would lead to lower entry costs that then lead to greater competition in credit markets. The only reason why monopolistic competition and the 'too big to fail' concept emerged is because of increasing returns to scale in banking institutions, itself a result of government regulations on financial institutions.

And because of the deregulation it was possible to take high risks, banks became too big to fail and the central banks needed to intervene. So the system needs to be regulated because they don't do it by themselves. Otherwise you get bankers who don't work fin the interest of the people.

[Great Minarchistan]

> European Union goes bankrupt due to excessive government regulation and intervention on banking system.

> Solution? Ehm, lets intervene more and blame deregulated banking market.

The deregulated system of the usa causes the problem of the banking sector and high risky Investments. After the crisis the choose to regulate the system and at this moment the banking system us recovering. The problem is that system was to much deragulated.

For the sake of your intelligence, stop to puke false facts. Housing Bubble was caused due to:

-> Federal takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, giving subsidized federal mortgages;
-> Extremely low interest rates imposed by Fed after Dot Com burst;
-> Federal decree enacted by Bill Clinton that stimulated home ownership.

And now, we are having the 2009-2017 bubble. Reasons?

-> Extremely low interest rates imposed by Fed after Housing Bubble burst;
-> Trillionaire stimulus (ARRA) enacted by Obama in 2008;
-> $4 trillion Q.E. injected into banks, who deposited all the money into Fed;
-> Federal subsidized college loans;
-> Trump's promise of a trillionaire infrastructure stimulus package.

Now I ask you, where is the deregulation?

EDIT: Just to ultimately refute your argument of "deregulation caused bubbles", take here the an excerpt of an article Paul Krugman wrote in 2002, directed at Fed:

To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

Six years later and you collect the results.

[Republic Denmark]

The deregulated system of the usa causes the problem of the banking sector and high risky Investments. After the crisis the choose to regulate the system and at this moment the banking system us recovering. The problem is that system was to much deragulated.

For the sake of your intelligence, stop to puke false facts. Housing Bubble was caused due to:

-> Federal takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, giving subsidized federal mortgages;
-> Extremely low interest rates imposed by Fed after Dot Com burst;
-> Federal decree enacted by Bill Clinton that stimulated home ownership.

And now, we are having the 2009-2017 bubble. Reasons?

-> Extremely low interest rates imposed by Fed after Housing Bubble burst;
-> Trillionaire stimulus (ARRA) enacted by Obama in 2008;
-> Trillionaire Q.E. injected into banks, who deposited all the money into Fed;
-> Federal subsidized college loans;
-> Trump's promise of a trillionaire infrastructure stimulus package.

Now I ask you, where is the deregulation?

Thats your opinion then. I know what causes the crisis and what happens. It is made possible by the deragulaton measures that where taken since the 70s. And low interests. I will not discuss this further if you complain that I'm not intelligent. I know how the financial system works and how it looks. You should research more before you discus and not saying that I'm false allready before you have researched it. Because most of the explabations where that the banking lobby used the political system to deragulate the system so that they could take such high risk Investments that cause the bubble but was feeded even more with the low interest rates.

[Imperium Anglorum]

When Franklin D. Roosevelt regulated the financial system after the depression of the 30s the financial system was safer.

No, it wasn't. The effect of the Great Depression was to reduce the financial sector's share of GDP, making financial crises less valuable. Compounded with the massive level of economic growth that occurred after the Second World War, one could have put money into next to anything and come out with more. The ability to do that means that there weren't any financial crises in that time period.

The impetus for deregulation was from the restrictions placed on banks which were not similarly put on other financial institutions. This led to a squeeze in two ways: (1) new money market funds, mutual funds, etc. allowed for depositors to find higher returns for their money and (2) banks were unable to find any ways to increase their profits to attract depositors.

The cause of risk-taking doesn't have to do with regulation. In fact, it has to do with the depositors demanding higher and higher returns. Depositors choose to place their money into assets with high risk and therefore, returns. Creating larger safety nets will only increase the impact of moral hazard. Writing broader regulations will only strengthen monopolistic structures in the financial services sector and shift deposits from one sort of financial institution to another.

And because of the deregulation it was possible to take high risks, banks became too big to fail and the central banks needed to intervene. So the system needs to be regulated because they don't do it by themselves.

Excepting the Glass-Steagall regulations which placed restrictions of asset types, banks have always been able to invest in whatever assets they choose. The cause of increased monopolistic competition has to do with bank expansion from the increasing returns to scale which I already spoke about. The system's regulation ought be done with consideration of market principles and price signals. This can best be accomplished not by slapping some kind of dumb-as-shit overreaction that leads to nobody lending money, but rather, controls on leverage ratios.

Otherwise you get bankers who don't work fin the interest of the people.

In a competitive equilibrium, the allocation of resources reaches allocative efficiency and Pareto optimality without any government intervention, per the First Welfare Theorem.

[Republic Denmark]

When Franklin D. Roosevelt regulated the financial system after the depression of the 30s the financial system was safer.

No, it wasn't. The effect of the Great Depression was to reduce the financial sector's share of GDP, making financial crises less valuable. Compounded with the massive level of economic growth that occurred after the Second World War, one could have put money into next to anything and come out with more. The ability to do that means that there weren't any financial crises in that time period.

The impetus for deregulation was from the restrictions placed on banks which were not similarly put on other financial institutions. This led to a squeeze in two ways: (1) new money market funds, mutual funds, etc. allowed for depositors to find higher returns for their money and (2) banks were unable to find any ways to increase their profits to attract depositors.

The cause of risk-taking doesn't have to do with regulation. In fact, it has to do with the depositors demanding higher and higher returns. Depositors choose to place their money into assets with high risk and therefore, returns. Creating larger safety nets will only increase the impact of moral hazard. Writing broader regulations will only strengthen monopolistic structures in the financial services sector and shift deposits from one sort of financial institution to another.

And because of the deregulation it was possible to take high risks, banks became too big to fail and the central banks needed to intervene. So the system needs to be regulated because they don't do it by themselves.

Excepting the Glass-Steagall regulations which placed restrictions of asset types, banks have always been able to invest in whatever assets they choose. The cause of increased monopolistic competition has to do with bank expansion from the increasing returns to scale which I already spoke about. The system's regulation ought be done with consideration of market principles and price signals. This can best be accomplished not by slapping some kind of dumb-as-shit overreaction that leads to nobody lending money, but rather, leverage ratio controls and capital requirements.

Otherwise you get bankers who don't work fin the interest of the people.

In a competitive equilibrium, the allocation of resources reaches allocative efficiency and Pareto optimality without any government intervention, per the First Welfare Theorem.

Then should we agree to disagree? Because I have read a lot of research that what I'm saying is the true. There are lot of explenations. Most of the research based on growing inequality and rising power of financial institutionele are based on the concept that deragulation was one of the causes. I'm convinced this is true.

[Great Minarchistan]

Thats your opinion then. I know what causes the crisis and what happens. It is made possible by the deragulaton measures that where taken since the 70s. And low interests. I will not discuss this further if you complain that I'm not intelligent. I know how the financial system works and how it looks. You should research more before you discus and not saying that I'm false allready before you have researched it. Because most of the explabations where that the banking lobby used the political system to deragulate the system so that they could take such high risk Investments that cause the bubble but was feeded even more with the low interest rates.

Oh! You must be Mr. Krugman then, since you contradict yourself in the first two lines. Say that the bubbles of 1995-2001, 2002-2008 and 2009-2017 are caused by deregulation and Fed's low interest rates is a brutal act of intellectual murder. Until now you didn't show me any solid fact to prove your thesis, except by the "I know how the system works". If you do know how it works, another reason to show the correlation between deregulation and financial bubbles. Go search some facts and return to this thread with more dignity.

[Republic Denmark]

Thats your opinion then. I know what causes the crisis and what happens. It is made possible by the deragulaton measures that where taken since the 70s. And low interests. I will not discuss this further if you complain that I'm not intelligent. I know how the financial system works and how it looks. You should research more before you discus and not saying that I'm false allready before you have researched it. Because most of the explabations where that the banking lobby used the political system to deragulate the system so that they could take such high risk Investments that cause the bubble but was feeded even more with the low interest rates.

Oh! You must be Mr. Krugman then, since you contradict yourself in the first two lines. Say that the bubbles of 1995-2001, 2002-2008 and 2009-2017 are caused by deregulation and Fed's low interest rates is a brutal act of intellectual murder. Until now you didn't show me any solid fact to prove your thesis, except by the "I know how the system works". If you do know how it works, another reason to show the correlation between deregulation and financial bubbles. Go search some facts and return to this thread with more dignity.

I have enough facts. Just the thing you need to do is just Google it. There are a lot of researchers who are saying this is the true. I am not going to discuss further. Because you are only being offensive.

[Republic Denmark]

Thats your opinion then. I know what causes the crisis and what happens. It is made possible by the deragulaton measures that where taken since the 70s. And low interests. I will not discuss this further if you complain that I'm not intelligent. I know how the financial system works and how it looks. You should research more before you discus and not saying that I'm false allready before you have researched it. Because most of the explabations where that the banking lobby used the political system to deragulate the system so that they could take such high risk Investments that cause the bubble but was feeded even more with the low interest rates.

Oh! You must be Mr. Krugman then, since you contradict yourself in the first two lines. Say that the bubbles of 1995-2001, 2002-2008 and 2009-2017 are caused by deregulation and Fed's low interest rates is a brutal act of intellectual murder. Until now you didn't show me any solid fact to prove your thesis, except by the "I know how the system works". If you do know how it works, another reason to show the correlation between deregulation and financial bubbles. Go search some facts and return to this thread with more dignity.

Give you one example who researched it or was busy with this subject. Noam Chomsky a respectfull researcher.

[Great Minarchistan]

Oh! You must be Mr. Krugman then, since you contradict yourself in the first two lines. Say that the bubbles of 1995-2001, 2002-2008 and 2009-2017 are caused by deregulation and Fed's low interest rates is a brutal act of intellectual murder. Until now you didn't show me any solid fact to prove your thesis, except by the "I know how the system works". If you do know how it works, another reason to show the correlation between deregulation and financial bubbles. Go search some facts and return to this thread with more dignity.

I have enough facts. Just the thing you need to do is just Google it. There are a lot of researchers who are saying this is the true. I am not going to discuss further. Because you are only being offensive.

Having enough facts and not showing them is the same of say "I have a million dollars!" with no proof. Those same researchers who affirm your stance have no solid proof, and are incredibly hypocrites. And now you are roleplaying the snowflake that won't reply because I am being offensive. Awww, how cute!

[REFUTED]

[Great Minarchistan]

Oh! You must be Mr. Krugman then, since you contradict yourself in the first two lines. Say that the bubbles of 1995-2001, 2002-2008 and 2009-2017 are caused by deregulation and Fed's low interest rates is a brutal act of intellectual murder. Until now you didn't show me any solid fact to prove your thesis, except by the "I know how the system works". If you do know how it works, another reason to show the correlation between deregulation and financial bubbles. Go search some facts and return to this thread with more dignity.

Give you one example who researched it or was busy with this subject. Noam Chomsky a respectfull researcher.

One? You better check Austrian School, Heritage Foundation and Forbes. If you think those are "biased af" sources, Trading Economics is your best friend. Just check the economic info they hold and you'll see the correlation between government invervention and financial bubbles.

EDIT: You probably didn't see my last edit that showed this, but even Paul Krugman, a "respected" keynesian, asked for a housing bubble to fix Nasdaq bubble.

To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opini ... e-dip.html

[Republic Denmark]

Give you one example who researched it or was busy with this subject. Noam Chomsky a respectfull researcher.

One? You better check Austrian School, Heritage Foundation and Forbes. If you think those are "biased af" sources, Trading Economics is your best friend. Just check the economic info they hold and you'll see the correlation between government invervention and financial bubbles.

EDIT: You probably didn't see my last edit that showed this, but even Paul Krugman, a "respected" keynesian, asked for a housing bubble to fix Nasdaq bubble.

To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opini ... e-dip.html

Sure believe in the toxic system where deragulation would work. I'm glad they aren't that stupid in Europe. And like i allready said I can easily come up with more. But do I need to give you 100 examples? And if this guys are hypocritrs why have some of them well knowned researchers and won the nobel Prize. But Lets agree that we disagree. Its about if the proposal is well written and we sea if it passed Yes or no.

[Great Minarchistan]

Sure believe in the toxic system where deragulation would work. I'm glad they aren't that stupid in Europe. And like i allready said I can easily come up with more. But do I need to give you 100 examples? And if this guys are hypocritrs why have some of them well knowned researchers and won the nobel Prize. But Lets agree that we disagree. Its about if the proposal is well written and we sea if it passed Yes or no.

1. Sure, they aren't so stupid in Europe. They are super stupid, guided by the equally Super-Mario Draghi. Trillionaire QEs, negative interest rates, lots of stimulus and all they could obtain with more government regulation is a bankrupt system, with fragile banks threatening to collapse the Euro.

2. Funny is how you didn't appoint any source and acts as if you showed me a lot of them. Come back to your senses.

3. Win a Nobel prize exempts me from being a hypocrite? Obama killed lots of innocent people during GWOT yet he won Peace Nobel Prize. Your argument is weak and ignorant. Here are some controversial Nobel Prizes: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/13/here-are ... ml?slide=1

4. Sure, I'll wait this proposal to be rejected or receive a massive backlash due to its lack of sense.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Its about if the proposal is well written and we sea if it passed Yes or no.

I can have 300 votes in 35 seconds riding on NO.

[Republic Denmark]

Sure believe in the toxic system where deragulation would work. I'm glad they aren't that stupid in Europe. And like i allready said I can easily come up with more. But do I need to give you 100 examples? And if this guys are hypocritrs why have some of them well knowned researchers and won the nobel Prize. But Lets agree that we disagree. Its about if the proposal is well written and we sea if it passed Yes or no.

1. Sure, they aren't so stupid in Europe. They are super stupid, guided by the equally Super-Mario Draghi. Trillionaire QEs, negative interest rates, lots of stimulus and all they could obtain with more government regulation is a bankrupt system, with fragile banks threatening to collapse the Euro.

2. Funny is how you didn't appoint any source and acts as if you showed me a lot of them. Come back to your senses

3. Win a Nobel prize exempts me from being a hypocrite? Obama killed lots of innocent people during GWOT yet he won Peace Nobel Prize. Your argument is weak and ignorant. Here are some controversial Nobel Prizes: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/13/here-are ... ml?slide=1

4. Sure, I'll wait this proposal to be rejected or receive a massive backlash due to its lack of sense.

Okay your a right conservatieve probably. I am a left liberal. So other ways of thinking. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. And like I said I'm not going to discuss further if you think that the only thing is right is what you are saying and doesn't even look on Google and to lazy to search for my opinions even they are quiet easy to find.

[Republic Denmark]

Its about if the proposal is well written and we sea if it passed Yes or no.

I can have 300 votes in 35 seconds riding on NO.

Congratulations with that possibility. Your just provoking me.

[The Atlae Isles]

I can have 300 votes in 35 seconds riding on NO.

Congratulations with that possibility. Your just provoking me.

I'm just going to pop in here, and say that because IA is a delegate with 299 endorsements, IA has 300 votes. It's not just provocation.

[Republic Denmark]

Congratulations with that possibility. Your just provoking me.

I'm just going to pop in here, and say that because IA is a delegate with 299 endorsements, IA has 300 votes. It's not just provocation.

Its just provoking me because your disagree with me. And say others what to vote. Let themselves decide if they ageee or not and not make the decission for them. In my opinion the proposal is good and it works here well in Europe. It has nearly the same ideas as the frank dodd act. So i don't see the problems with it.

[The Atlae Isles]

I'm just going to pop in here, and say that because IA is a delegate with 299 endorsements, IA has 300 votes. It's not just provocation.

Its just provoking me because your disagree with me. And say others what to vote. Let themselves decide if they ageee or not and not make the decission for them. In my opinion the proposal is good and it works here well in Europe. It has nearly the same ideas as the frank dodd act. So i don't see the problems with it.

Huh? I don't really understand. IA has the right to decide how to vote, and as a delegate, he can put 300 votes in. The rest of the nations can vote too.

For me, the proposal sounds good, but in most WA nations, the way they run their governments should not be micromanaged by the WA, called NatSov. Some are just NatSov in general, and others are what would be "IntFed," or "reasonable NatSov."

Also, I don't see any similarities with Dodd-Frank at all.

[Republic Denmark]

Its just provoking me because your disagree with me. And say others what to vote. Let themselves decide if they ageee or not and not make the decission for them. In my opinion the proposal is good and it works here well in Europe. It has nearly the same ideas as the frank dodd act. So i don't see the problems with it.

Huh? I don't really understand. IA has the right to decide how to vote, and as a delegate, he can put 300 votes in. The rest of the nations can vote too.

For me, the proposal sounds good, but in most WA nations, the way they run their governments should not be micromanaged by the WA, called NatSov. Some are just NatSov in general, and others are what would be "IntFed," or "reasonable NatSov."

Also, I don't see any similarities with Dodd-Frank at all.

Sorry for misunderstanding about the votes. I made a mistake. The dodd-frank act wants also to have more money in cash at the banks and wants to inform the customer in a good way before they just sell the product to the consumer. And the control on the banks are higher and in America they introduced also stress-tests for banks.

[Republic Denmark]

[proposal=]NEW PROPOSAL
Regulation of the Financial Sector

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant

Observing: the importance of regulation of the financial sector (banks and insurance companies) in member states,

Cognizant: of the risks associated an unregulated financial system in the member states,

Honouring: The possibility to regulate the financial system by the member states itself and remains sovereign on this matter.

A. Recognizes: member nations' right to develop their own method how to regulate the financial system,

B. Forbids member nations to deregulate the financial system that could cause major risks for the world economy and could destroy the financial system. If the member nations (especially for socialistic and state industry states) want to opt-out this resolution it is possible by putting own laws in effect to regulate the financial system.

C. Directs a World Assembly Stability Mechanism (WASM) to grant the safety of the financial system by the following measures:
1. The WASM will audit the financial sector of the member states;
2. The WASM will test the banks and insurance companies if they are solvent enough;
3. The WASM will do stress tests to ensure if the economy is failing the banking system is liquid and solvent enough to overcome the trouble.

D. Tasks: the WASM with securing and safeguard the financial system and to eliminate the possibilities of a bank run that could cause major problems in the trust between banks and the people.

E. Further tasks: The WASM will do research reports and will contribute to the safety of the financial sector.

F. Directives:
1. The amount of debt is restricted. Consumers can’t lend more money then 4 times there total salary a year;
2. The banks need to have 12% of their equity in cash to remain liquid if it comes to a run on the bank. If a bank fails to achieve this it could lend from the central bank;
3. Insurance companies and banks needed to have a license that they may sell their financial products;
4. Employees in the financial sector need special certificates about the financial products;
5. Insurance companies need a solvency rate of 150% or more to overcome major risks on insurance products. (This means the insurance company can pay 1,5 times their liabilities on a normal level without an enormous raise of claims caused by weather, fire or other circumstances);
6. Customers need to be well informed by the banks and insurance companies. This will solve problems that the banks and insurance companies sell products that are not in the interest of the customer.[/proposal]

Region Delegates could vote for it in the WA at this moment

[The Cheeki Breeki Anarchists]

Our nation simply cannot support such a proposal due to our Fraudulent production of money. However our currency when trading with other Nations is technology and golden trade deals. Therefore TCBA can only accept this if it extends to trade and not to inter-national currency.

[Great Minarchistan]

I have some objections to your proposal.

Cognizant: of the risks associated an unregulated financial system in the member states

The risks being?

B. Forbids member nations to deregulate the financial system that could cause major risks for the world economy and could destroy the financial system.

How deregulation would destroy the financial system? Also, are you forcing nations to keep regulations? What about libertarian regions?

If the member nations (especially for socialistic and state industry states) want to opt-out this resolution it is possible by putting own laws in effect to regulate the financial system.

I repeat, what about libertarian nations?

C. Directs a World Assembly Stability Mechanism (WASM) to grant the safety of the financial system by the following measures:
1. The WASM will audit the financial sector of the member states;
2. The WASM will test the banks and insurance companies if they are solvent enough;
3. The WASM will do stress tests to ensure if the economy is failing the banking system is liquid and solvent enough to overcome the trouble.

And if the nations violate these, what will happen?

D. Tasks: the WASM with securing and safeguard the financial system and to eliminate the possibilities of a bank run that could cause major problems in the trust between banks and the people.

Through regulation? You are asking for a banking black market.

E. Further tasks: The WASM will do research reports and will contribute to the safety of the financial sector.

Sure, you'll contribute to the safety of financial sector since there'll be no banks anymore. Unless a banking black market surges.

F. Directives:
1. The amount of debt is restricted. Consumers can’t lend more money then 4 times there total salary a year;
2. The banks need to have 12% of their equity in cash to remain liquid if it comes to a run on the bank. If a bank fails to achieve this it could lend from the central bank;
3. Insurance companies and banks needed to have a license that they may sell their financial products;
4. Employees in the financial sector need special certificates about the financial products;
5. Insurance companies need a solvency rate of 150% or more to overcome major risks on insurance products. (This means the insurance company can pay 1,5 times their liabilities on a normal level without an enormous raise of claims caused by weather, fire or other circumstances);
6. Customers need to be well informed by the banks and insurance companies. This will solve problems that the banks and insurance companies sell products that are not in the interest of the customer.

1. So you are blocking the will of citizens and stopping debt leveraging, therefore slowing growth. Jesus Christ.

2. So you are basically saying: "OK your solvency rate needs to be at least 12%, but if you go bankrupt don't worry, we will bail you out". That's how Too Big To Fail banks surge.

3. Now you are reducing competition and creating higher prices and worse quality for insurance and banking sector.

4. Now you are definitely wanting to break banking sector apart. Is this becoming a Big Brother?

5. Basically no new insurance company will surge anymore, unless you give them loans. Oops, that's how financial crisis happen.

6. That already happens.

Overall, your proposal wants to kill finance sector to say "Hey! We ain't having more financial bubbles!". No wonder why, since there are no banks and insurance corporations anymore.