In this article by the NY Times it brings up some serious issues with their proposed regulations and it is important top find out who is behind the gross inaccuracies and whether this statement is attributable to Mr Lawsky or not ...
Anyone one in Mr Lawsky's position certainly knows that banks don't hold the same amount of money as is owed their customers but actually only a smaller and smaller fraction. The whole banking system is a system known as fractional reserve banking with banks holding only in the single digits worth of what they owe their customers.
So, if the article is accurate about the facts of the proposal and IF the facts are attributable to Mr Lawsky and, together with the obvious point that anyone in Mr Lawsky's position would be totally aware that today's banking system is a fractional reserve system then would there be any other possible conclusion about him as what the title asserts?
And if that is what he is then how can he be trusted with any of the rest of the proposals he has made no matter how innoculous they might appear?
Connect With Us