The Supreme Court’s recent decision allows regional interstate banks to do aw

游客2023-12-20  21

问题    The Supreme Court’s recent decision allows regional interstate banks to do away with one restriction in America’s banking operation, although many others still remain. Although the ruling does not apply to very large money-center banks, it is move in a liberalizing direction that could at last push Congress into framing a sensible legal and regulatory system that allows banks to plan their future beyond the next court case.
   The restrictive laws that the courts are interpreting are mainly a legacy of the bank failures of the 1930s. The current high rate -- higher than at any time since the Great Depression -- has made legislators afraid to remove the restrictions. While legislative timidity is understandable, it is also mistaken. One reason so many American banks are getting into trouble is precisely that the old restrictions make it hard for them to build a domestic base large and strong enough to support their activities in today’s telecommunicating round-the-clock, around-the-world financial markets. In trying to escape from these restrictions, banks are taking enormous, and what should be unnecessary, risks. For example, would a large bank be buying small, failed savings banks at inflated prices if federal law and states’ regulations permitted that bank to expand through the acquisition of financially healthy banks in the region7 Of course not. The solution is clear American banks will be sounder when they are not geographically limited. The House of Representative’s banking committee has shown part of the way forward by recommending common-sensible, though limited, legislation for a five-year transition to nationwide banking. This would give regional banks time to group together to form counterweights to the big money-center banks. Without this breathing space the big money-legislation should be regarded as only a way station on the road towards a complete examination of American’s suitable banking legislation. [br] Which of the following best describes why the restrictive banking laws of the 1930s are still on the book?

选项 A、The bank failures of the 1930s were caused by restrictive courts.
B、Banking has not changed in the past 50 years.
C、The banking system is too restrictive, but on alternatives have been suggested.
D、Legislators apparently believe that banking problems similar to those of the Depression still exist today.

答案 D

解析 该题问:下列哪一个最好地描述了1930年的限制银行法依然保留的原因?立法者显然相信类似于大萧条 (the Great Depression)时期的金融问题目前仍然存在。第二段第一、二句指出,法庭目前所依据的限制法主要是30年代遗留下来的防止银行破产的法律。由于目前所显示的银行产率高于30年代大萧条以后任何一个时期,立法者对废除限制表示担心。这种担心在作者看来是错误的。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3289140.html
最新回复(0)