This is absolutely correct:
...force financial firms to generate equity funding either through retained earnings or, in the case of publicly traded firms, through stock issuance. The status quo allows banks instead to leverage taxpayer assistance by holding razor-thin equity margins, relying on debt to a far greater extent than typical large non-financial firms do. Some large firms, such as Apple, hold virtually no debt at all. Greater reliance on equity would give banks a much larger cushion to absorb losses.
The financial industry complains that efforts to force greater equity funding would curtail lending, but this is just nonsense in a general equilibrium setting.
Kenneth Rogoff, a former chief economist of the IMF, is professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University.
The NEED Act forces "financial firms to generate equity funding either through retained earnings or, in the case of publicly traded firms, through stock issuance." What it does is not allow regular consumer deposits to be lent out. It doesn't allow the bank to create credit- or debt-money via fractional-reserve lending. I agree with much of the NEED Act. I especially like that it creates United States Money, which is similar to United States Notes (debt-free; the government does not borrow to create its own currency). It also focuses upon full employment and infrastructure, which is correctly broadly defined.