The centralized banking system of Western Europe has contributed to economic stagnation: America needs its small banks

"The recent events surrounding Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank have created unprecedented challenges for the health of community, midsize and regional banks. We are headed at an accelerating pace toward a European-style banking system dominated by a handful of very large, effectively government-guaranteed banks. This would amount to a fundamental shift in the American banking system that would undermine its support for small and midsize businesses and local communities.

This shift is in part due to a larger trend of bank consolidation over the past several decades, which has allowed the biggest banks to continue to grow even larger. But now there is a new threat: the potential of a rapid flight to safety of depositors who may seek refuge with the "too big to fail" banks, starving smaller ones of capital.

Large banks play an essential role in our financial system. They provide crucial services for major projects, international commerce, large companies, major investment institutions and large traders. But small businesses are the growth engine for the American economy -- the drivers of job creation and innovation. Community and regional banks focus on the needs of these enterprises and keep them afloat in a tough economy. Community banks alone provided 30% of Paycheck Protection Program loans during the pandemic. According to the Independent Community Bankers of America, community banks make 60% of all small-business loans and more than 80% of farm loans. And great innovative companies start as small enterprises. The support of local banks is critical to supporting their growth.

The core of the U.S. banking system lies in community and regional banks that have strong relationships with their clients, serve a diverse array of customers and businesses, and are deeply invested in their communities. This is a stark contrast to the centralized banking system of Western Europe, which has contributed to economic stagnation and a lack of innovative small companies. The local focus of the U.S. banking system results in consumers who rely on borrowing to finance homes, cars and other large purchases, while small businesses rely on the same financing to execute payments and cover operational costs. These core features of our economy would incur significant damage with fewer community banks that have the motivation, infrastructure and resources to prioritize these customers.

This moment is a crucial juncture for the U.S. banking system, and policy makers need to decide what the system will look like when the dust settles. They can either tacitly promote rapid consolidation by the biggest banks or support a more stable and robust ecosystem of small, midsize and regional banks that better meet the needs of small-business owners and communities across the country.

The silence of larger financial institutions and megabanks over the weekend was heard loud and clear. It would be a grave mistake to loosen the financial fabric that holds the businesses of our nation together.

---

Mr. Greene is chairman and CEO of Tassat Group Inc. Mr. Michaelson is chief investment officer of Michaelson Capital and a director of Tassat." [1]

1. America Needs Its Small Banks
Greene, Kevin R; Michaelson, John.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 17 Mar 2023: A.15.

 

Kam priklauso universitetas?

"Amerikos aukštasis mokslas išgyvena krizę. Įvairovės, teisingumo ir įtraukimo biurokratijos augimas ir didėjantis nepakantumas priešingoms nuomonėms paskatino politines kovas dėl sprendimų priėmimo universitetuose Šiaurės Karolinoje, Teksase, Floridoje ir kitur. Kovos rodo, kad kyla esminis klausimas: kam „priklauso“ universitetas? Galbūt, geriau suformuluoti klausimą: kam priklauso mokykla?

 

     Konkurencingoje privačioje rinkoje nuosavybės teisė yra aiški. Kai Elonas Muskas perka tokią kompaniją, kaip „Twitter“, nedaugelis abejoja jo teise atleisti darbuotojus ar pakeisti prieigos taisykles. Nors praktika labai skiriasi tarp tūkstančių Amerikos kolegijų ir universitetų, septynios grupės dažnai pretenduoja į bent dalį nuosavybės ir kontrolės:

 

     -- Valdyba. Daugumą mokyklų, tiek valstybinių, tiek privačių, prižiūri teisėtai sudaryta valdyba.

 

     -- Politikai. Valstybinėse institucijose valstijos valdžia paprastai yra teisėta mokyklos „savininkė“.

 

     -- Administratoriai. Mokyklos prezidentui ir vyresniems biurokratams priskirta vykdomoji atsakomybė, kuri primena nuosavybę.

 

     -- Profesoriai. Profesoriai, administruojantys akademinius pasiūlymus ir atliekantys dotacijas skatinančius tyrimus, dažnai jaučia, kad mokykla priklauso jiems.

 

     -- Studentai. Jie yra pagrindinė mokyklos egzistavimo priežastis, o jų šeimos moka didelius mokesčius.

 

     -- Alumnai. Absolventai sudaro donorų bazę daugumoje privačių mokyklų ir kai kuriose valstybinėse mokyklose.

 

     -- Akreditavimo agentūros. Federalinis švietimo departamentas įpareigoja šias įstaigas patvirtinti institucijos teisę suteikti laipsnius.

 

     Kai kurios mokyklos netinka šiam modeliui. Religinės mokyklos paprastai turi šiek tiek kitokią valdymo dinamiką, nei vyriausybei priklausančios bendruomenės kolegijos, valstybiniai universitetai ar elitinės privačios mokyklos. Kai kuriose institucijose profesinės sąjungos turi įtakos sprendimų priėmimui. Ši nuosavybės įvairovė istoriškai buvo viena iš Amerikos aukštojo mokslo stiprybių. JAV akademiją nevaldo monopolinė vyriausybės švietimo ministerija.

 

     Šiaurės Karolinos universitetas, Teksaso technikos universitetas ir kitos didelės valstybinės mokyklos buvo pastarojo meto didelio atgarsio sumanymo scena. Daugelis tokių mokyklų susiduria su mažėjančios visuomenės paramos, didelių studijų mokesčių ir mažėjančio studentų skaičiaus pasekmėmis. Maždaug nuo 1960 m. iki 2010 m. valstybės politikai reguliariai didino finansavimą ir dažniausiai neįsitraukė į vidinius universiteto reikalus. Tuo laikotarpiu šiek tiek nesupratingos valdybos vykdė administracijos prašymus, o universiteto prezidentas vaišindavo tarybos narius, o jų lojalumą pirkdavo su bilietais į sporto renginius.

 

     Šiuo laikotarpiu studentai turėjo palyginti nedidelę įtaką, o doktorantūros perteklius sumažino ir profesorių galią bei paklausumą. Tuo pat metu profesūra, visada buvus liberalų bastionu, perėjo į kraštutinę kairę pusę. Pastaraisiais metais kolegijų profesoriai atvirai ir agresyviai propagavo tokias ideologijas, kaip kritinė rasių teorija.

 

     Dešimtmetį besimokančių asmenų mažėjimas po 2011 m. atspindėjo tikslų suvokimą: dauguma kolegijų tapo per brangiomis indoktrinacijos gamyklomis. To pripažinimas paskatino vis agresyvesnes valstijos politikų pastangas reformuoti universitetus, suardant ankstesnę beveik nepriklausomybę nuo politinio proceso.

 

     Kai kuriose šalies dalyse išrinkti pareigūnai nusprendė susigrąžinti savo valstybinių universitetų sistemų nuosavybę. Gubernatoriaus Rono DeSantiso populiarumas išaugo, kai jis pareikalavo, kad Floridos mokyklos atsiskaitytų už savo įvairovės, teisingumo ir įtraukimo išlaidas. Jam pavyko gauti specialų valstybės finansavimą naujam, konservatyviam Hamiltono centrui Floridos universitete, ir jis sumanė drąsiai perimti nedidelį Naująjį koledžą, ragindamas jį tapti Pietų atsaku Hillsdale, nedidelei laisvųjų menų mokyklai. Mičigane, kuris garsėja tuo, kad atsisako pinigų iš federalinės vyriausybės.

 

     Prie šios tendencijos prisijungė ir kitos valstijos. Konservatyvioji Šiaurės Karolinos įstatymų leidžiamoji valdžia suplanavo GOP perėmimą UNC valdytojų taryboje, kuri 12:0 balsavo už naujos mokyklos, pasiryžusios laisvai saviraiškai aukštojo mokslo srityje, sukūrimą. Teksaso valstijos senatorius pristatė įstatymo projektą, pagal kurį laisvai rinkai atsidavęs Civitas institutas Teksaso universitete Ostine pavirstų į oficialią kolegiją. „Texas Tech“ klesti Laisvosios rinkos institutas, kuris „pažangius mokslinius tyrimus ir mokymą, susieja su laisvos įmonės sistema ir institucine aplinka, reikalinga jai gerai veikti“. Ohajo valstijoje įstatymų leidėjai pažadėjo automatiškai netvirtinti gubernatorių kandidatų į universitetų valdybas. Anksčiau šiuos nominantus dažnai rinkdavo universiteto administratoriai.

 

     Dauguma valstybinių universitetų vis dar priklauso nuo mokesčių mokėtojų finansavimo, kad apmokėtų daugelį savo sąskaitų. Jei tie universitetai pernelyg smarkiai nukrypsta nuo priimtų elgesio normų, jie gali būti baudžiami sumažintomis subsidijomis, kontrolės praradimu arba abiem. 

 

Galbūt, įstatymų leidėjai norės pradėti pereiti prie naujo finansavimo modelio: skirti valstybės lėšas klientams (studentams), o ne švietimo gamintojams (universitetams), o tada tegul švietimo rinkos veikia. Galiausiai net karingi dėstytojai turėtų suprasti, kad kadencija nėra daug verta, jei nėra dolerių atlyginimams mokėti arba studentų klausytis paskaitų.

     ---

     P. Vedderis yra Ohajo universiteto ekonomikos profesorius emeritas, Nepriklausomo instituto vyresnysis bendradarbis ir knygos „Pažado atkūrimas: aukštasis mokslas Amerikoje“ autorius." [1]

 

1. Who Owns the University?
Vedder, Richard.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 17 Mar 2023: A.15.

Who Owns the University?

"American higher education is in crisis. The rise of diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracies and a growing intolerance for dissent has spurred political battles for control of campus decision-making in North Carolina, Texas, Florida, and elsewhere. The fights point to a fundamental question: Who "owns" a university? Perhaps the question is better phrased: To whom does a school belong?

In the competitive private marketplace, ownership is clear. When Elon Musk buys a company like Twitter, few question his authority to fire staff or change access rules. While practices vary enormously among the thousands of American colleges and universities, seven groups often claim at least partial ownership and control:

-- The board. Most schools, public or private, are overseen by a legally constituted governing board.

-- The politicians. At public institutions, state government usually is the legal "owner" of the school.

-- The administrators. A school's president and senior bureaucrats are vested with executive responsibility, which resembles ownership.

-- The faculty. The professors who administer academic offerings and conduct grant-inducing research often feel the school belongs to them.

-- The students. They are a primary reason for the school's existence and their families pay substantial tuition and fees.

-- The alumni. Graduates constitute the donor base at most private schools and some public ones as well.

-- The accrediting agencies. The federal Education Department charges these bodies with certifying an institution's right to confer degrees.

Some schools don't fit this mold. Religious schools usually have a somewhat different governing dynamic than do government-owned community colleges, state universities or elite private schools. At some institutions, labor unions have an effect on decision-making. This diversity of ownership historically has been one of the strengths of American higher education. In the U.S., the academy isn't run by a stultifying monopolistic government education ministry.

The University of North Carolina, Texas Tech University and other large state schools have been the scene of recent high-profile contretemps. Many such schools are dealing with the fallout from declining public support, high tuition fees and falling enrollments. From roughly 1960 to 2010, state politicians increased funding regularly and largely stayed out of internal university affairs. In that period, somewhat clueless governing boards rubber-stamped administrative requests, with the university president wining and dining board members and purchasing their loyalty with tickets to sporting events.

Students had relatively little clout during this period, and an overproduction of doctorates eroded the power and marketability of professors too. Simultaneously, the professoriate, always a liberal bastion, moved to the extreme left. In recent years college professors have openly and aggressively promoted ideologies such as critical race theory.

A decade of enrollment decline after 2011 reflected an accurate perception: Most colleges had become overpriced indoctrination mills. Recognition of this stimulated increasingly aggressive efforts by state politicians to reform universities, eroding their previous near independence from the political process.

In some parts of the country, elected officials have decided to reclaim ownership of their public university systems. Gov. Ron DeSantis's popularity soared when he demanded that Florida schools account for their DEI spending. He managed to get special state funding for a new conservative-oriented Hamilton Center at the University of Florida, and he engineered a daring takeover of the small New College, calling on it to become the South's answer to Hillsdale, a small liberal-arts school in Michigan that is famous for refusing money from the federal government.

Other states have joined the trend. The conservative North Carolina legislature engineered a GOP takeover of the UNC board of governors, who voted 12-0 to create a new school committed to free expression in higher education. A Texas state senator has introduced a bill to turn the free-market minded Civitas Institute at the University of Texas, Austin, into a formal college. The Free Market Institute -- which "advances research and teaching related to the free enterprise system and the institutional environment necessary for it to function well" -- flourishes at Texas Tech. In Ohio, legislators have vowed to cease rubber-stamping gubernatorial nominees to university governing boards. In the past, these nominees were often picked by university administrators.

Most state universities still depend on taxpayer funding to pay many of their bills. If those universities deviate too drastically from accepted norms of behavior, they can be punished with reduced subsidies, a loss of control, or both.

 

Perhaps legislators will start moving to a new funding model: give state funds to customers (students) rather than to educational producers (universities) and then let education markets work. Ultimately, even militant faculty should realize that tenure isn't worth much if there are no dollars to pay salaries -- or students to listen to their lectures.

---

Mr. Vedder is an emeritus professor of economics at Ohio University, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute and author of "Restoring the Promise: Higher Education in America."" [1]

1. Who Owns the University?
Vedder, Richard.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 17 Mar 2023: A.15.