your editorial <u+201c> who<u+2019>s the systemic risk now? <u+201d> (sept. 29) on the justice department<u+2019>s claim of upward of $14 billion against deutsche bank raises the question of whether the claim itself could create a systemic crisis for the global financial system. as you say, <u+201c>government caprice has become a major risk, and maybe the major risk, to the global financial system.<u+201d> yet neither of our presidential candidates seem to understand this point. donald trump <u+2019>s rants about the north american free trade agreement and china constantly beating the u.s. on trade make the prospect of his presidency a serious risk to the world economy. hillary clinton is no better. she has promised to continue governing through executive order if congress won<u+2019>t do what she wants, and there is no doubt she will continue the obama administration<u+2019>s raids on banks, etc., if not increasing them, to appeal to the bernie sanders-elizabeth warren wing of her party. it is sad that neither presidential candidate, nor very many of their supporters, have realized what bill english, deputy prime minister and finance minister of new zealand, said in may 2014: <u+201c>governments need to create an environment of stability and good incentives for [businesses] to grow the economy. businesses need confidence the rules will not shift and the government is not one of the risks they have to manage.<u+201d> businesses need stability and good incentives for the economy to grow. government should not be one of the risks business has to manage. these are obvious concepts, and yet alien to our politics this year. patrick j. allen river forest, ill.
political risk once meant banana republics - wsj
noauthor