Wasting a Crisis电子书

售价：¥

1人正在读 | 0人评论

9.8

作者：Mahoney, Paul G.

出版社：University of Chicago Press

出版时间：2015-03-23

字数：39.4万

所属分类：进口书 > 外文原版书 > 法律/政治/宗教

温馨提示：数字商品不支持退换货，不提供源文件，不支持导出打印

为你推荐

150 Really Useful English Phrases：For Intermediate Students Wishing to Advance.

￥0.01

150 Everyday Uses Of English Prepositions: Elementary to Intermediate

￥0.01

His First His Second：An Alicia Friend Investigation： An Alicia Friend Investigat

￥0.01

The Dead and the Missing: An Adam Park Thriller

￥0.01
Via?a la ?ar?

￥0.01

Hard Fall：A gripping noir thriller

￥0.01

A haldokló részvényes

￥0.01

A megoldóember

￥0.01

读书简介
目录
累计评论(0条)

读书简介
目录
累计评论(0条)

The recent financial crisis led to sweeping reforms that inspired countless references to the financial reforms of the New Deal. Comparable to the reforms of the New Deal in both scope and scale, the 2,300-page Dodd-Frank Act of 2010-the main regulatory reform package introduced in the United States-also shared with New Deal reforms the assumption that the underlying cause of the crisis was misbehavior by securities market participants, exacerbated by lax regulatory oversight.With Wasting a Crisis, Paul G. Mahoney offers persuasive research to show that this now almost universally accepted narrative of market failure-broadly similar across financial crises-is formulated by political actors hoping to deflect blame from prior policy errors. Drawing on a cache of data, from congressional investigations, litigation, regulatory reports, and filings to stock quotes from the 1920s and '30s, Mahoney moves beyond the received wisdom about the financial reforms of the New Deal, showing that lax regulation was not a substantial cause of the financial problems of the Great Depression. As new regulations were formed around this narrative of market failure, not only were the majority largely ineffective, they were also often counterproductive, consolidating market share in the hands of leading financial firms. An overview of twenty-first-century securities reforms from the same analytic perspective, including Dodd-Frank and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, shows a similar pattern and suggests that they too may offer little benefit to investors and some measurable harm.

目录展开