Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 03:46 PM Oct 2015

So how many of you have read Clinton's plan to regulate Wall Street?

Well here it is in all it's glory.

Now at least you can be knowledgeable judges, if you actually take the time to read it. I expect some will, most won't, yet many will say something about it being inadequate, or politically expedient, or just talk .... but it is a detailed plan that takes much into account and is much more in depth and addresses today's financial realities far better than an 80+ year old law can.

It's kind of like with the TPP, many people were wailing and gnashing their teeth about it without ever knowing any of the details. Judging in ignorance is foolish at best, at the worst .... well, I won't go there.
60 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So how many of you have read Clinton's plan to regulate Wall Street? (Original Post) Persondem Oct 2015 OP
How many people trust her to ever implement such a thing? Fawke Em Oct 2015 #1
Yep nice words Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #3
From Paul Krugman Persondem Oct 2015 #8
Krugman is only revered here when he supports Sander/Warrens' view of things. When he says things Hoyt Oct 2015 #52
A lengthy digression follows, but it's my thread so here goes .... Persondem Oct 2015 #60
Do you think we elect dictators in the U.S.? ConservativeDemocrat Oct 2015 #18
No one with six brain cells to rub together. hifiguy Oct 2015 #34
Just saying is all portlander23 Oct 2015 #2
LOL. You really believe The Hillary is going to regulate her BFFs on Wall St.? in_cog_ni_to Oct 2015 #4
Yup. Agree 100%. djean111 Oct 2015 #6
I find it very telling that Hill won't reinstate Glass-Steagall...it must bevery important to banks! reformist2 Oct 2015 #11
You didn't read it, did you? Persondem Oct 2015 #13
How many times must Krugman be slid under the DU bus? oasis Oct 2015 #39
Paul Krugman does. Persondem Oct 2015 #16
Repub/Third Way - it doesn't matter. in_cog_ni_to Oct 2015 #30
You got that right. Has as much chance being implemented and effective as Hillary's "cut it out" offensive. InAbLuEsTaTe Oct 2015 #56
Another day in DU Trajan Oct 2015 #5
Mine either! Nt newfie11 Oct 2015 #10
Right, so I ssume you have documentation of HRC "embracing" TPP, right? Persondem Oct 2015 #14
wouldn't want any dissenting info or ideas getting into that echo chamber, eh? nt Persondem Oct 2015 #19
Bernie wants to BREAK UP THE BANKS. Which is way more than what Hillary's bill will do. reformist2 Oct 2015 #7
And then what? And then nothing. JaneyVee Oct 2015 #21
How much do we still know about TPP nt newfie11 Oct 2015 #9
More on this from Paul Krugman Persondem Oct 2015 #12
Then why the hell do they give Clinton so much damn money? They don't just throw their money liberal_at_heart Oct 2015 #15
the "stats" that show financial institution contributions include aggregated individual donations Persondem Oct 2015 #17
Yeah. Right. And what about the hundreds of thousands of dollars they liberal_at_heart Oct 2015 #20
I am pretty sure that $$$ went to the Clinton Foundation. Persondem Oct 2015 #22
You tell yourself whatever you need to. The rest of us know better. liberal_at_heart Oct 2015 #23
Evidently not. See post #44 nt Persondem Oct 2015 #45
The speaking fees went directly to Bill and Hillary's account. jwirr Oct 2015 #31
Facts say otherwise Persondem Oct 2015 #44
These were donations to the foundation. They also got paid jwirr Oct 2015 #50
PACS give to any candidate they expect has a shot at winning. They usually give more to their Hoyt Oct 2015 #53
Post Moved. Talking to myself again, sorry. Hoyt Oct 2015 #54
We can play dueling economists portlander23 Oct 2015 #24
Finally, a decent, sensible reply, thank you, ... though I am not sure your guy Persondem Oct 2015 #26
That does not address the questions portlander23 Oct 2015 #28
Ok. I'll play a little ... Persondem Oct 2015 #46
Linus Pauling had two Nobel prizes... Human101948 Oct 2015 #38
Apples, meet oranges ... Pauling didn't win his Nobel prize in Nutrition Persondem Oct 2015 #43
Linus Pauling won his Nobel Prizes for chemistry... Human101948 Oct 2015 #48
Paul Krugman is not saying that we do not need Glass-Steagall. jwirr Oct 2015 #27
I haven't Comodorio Oct 2015 #25
Hmmm... We probably first read it 6 minutes after you, assuming WhaTHellsgoingonhere Oct 2015 #29
The only details people knew about TPP were those leaked, and leaked by people who were..... George II Oct 2015 #32
But that's not true at all, many groups of many interests have been contributing to and or opposing Bluenorthwest Oct 2015 #37
Read an analysis of it by a law prof in The Atlantic. hifiguy Oct 2015 #33
It reads like more middlegrounding Scootaloo Oct 2015 #35
^^ This. n/t winter is coming Oct 2015 #36
+100000 azmom Oct 2015 #40
Sanders and Warren support an updated Glass Steagall jfern Oct 2015 #41
Glass-Steagal is obviously all or nothing. It can't be watered down, really. w4rma Oct 2015 #42
Stiglitz in favor of Glass-Steagall, E. Warren and Bernie in favor of Glass-Steagall. EndElectoral Oct 2015 #47
Reich in favor of Glass-Steagall frylock Oct 2015 #57
Lots of pretty words that the rubes will lap up. YabaDabaNoDinoNo Oct 2015 #49
Discarded as rubbish. The _very_ fact that Clinton won't do shit to WS is already known nt NervousGuy Oct 2015 #51
Fortunately as of 2014, we have the Volcker Rule which has been called "Glass-Steagall in spirit." Hoyt Oct 2015 #55
Kick and rec for the "Berniebros" that I keep hearing about. zappaman Oct 2015 #58
Clinton's plan to regulate Wall Street Califonz Oct 2015 #59

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
8. From Paul Krugman
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 03:57 PM
Oct 2015
Well, if Wall Street’s attitude and its political giving are any indication, financiers themselves believe that any Democrat, Mrs. Clinton very much included, would be serious about policing their industry’s excesses. And that’s why they’re doing all they can to elect a Republican.


Link.
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
52. Krugman is only revered here when he supports Sander/Warrens' view of things. When he says things
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 11:31 AM
Oct 2015

like this, or "people blame NAFTA for things caused by other factors" (such as outsourcing of jobs), he's a Fascist Oligarch.

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
60. A lengthy digression follows, but it's my thread so here goes ....
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 09:17 PM
Oct 2015

Your post reminded me of a section of the preface to a Harlan Ellison collection of short stories called Strange Wine (1978). In that section he writes of his experiences speaking to college students ... "As long as I am running down the military-industrial complex or the fat money cats who play sneaky panther games with our lives, they give me many a "Right on, brother!" ovations. But when I tell them how shallow and programmed television is making them, there is a clear lynch tenor in the mob."

Was tickling my brain all day and I finally recalled the source of the quote.

Anyways, your post reminded me of that.

Thank you for the back up.

ConservativeDemocrat

(2,720 posts)
18. Do you think we elect dictators in the U.S.?
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:09 PM
Oct 2015

I'm asking because you have this upvoted post about how some terrible Hillary supporters are comparing you to ignorant teenagers, and you're very offended about that.

I'd like you to correct that impression here. Maybe you can write a short essay about the nature of the federal government, its branches, and who controls those branches, so that you can show people that you do actually understand the Constitutional concept of separation of powers, and what that means in terms of how much any President can actually get done. Yes, even your beloved Senator Sanders.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

in_cog_ni_to

(41,600 posts)
4. LOL. You really believe The Hillary is going to regulate her BFFs on Wall St.?
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 03:49 PM
Oct 2015

That's funny. Not-going-to-happen. This is just a part of the dog and pony show.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
6. Yup. Agree 100%.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 03:53 PM
Oct 2015

And, we would be airily and condescendingly told that this was just campaign blather, and not to be counted on.

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
16. Paul Krugman does.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:04 PM
Oct 2015
"Well, if Wall Street’s attitude and its political giving are any indication, financiers themselves believe that any Democrat, Mrs. Clinton very much included, would be serious about policing their industry’s excesses. And that’s why they’re doing all they can to elect a Republican."


link

in_cog_ni_to

(41,600 posts)
30. Repub/Third Way - it doesn't matter.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:37 PM
Oct 2015

There is no way The Hillary is going to regulate her friends on Wall St. We're not falling for any of the dog and pony show anymore. We know who her donors are. Sorry.

InAbLuEsTaTe

(24,110 posts)
56. You got that right. Has as much chance being implemented and effective as Hillary's "cut it out" offensive.
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 11:50 AM
Oct 2015

Gimme a break! Gimme Bernie!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

 

Trajan

(19,089 posts)
5. Another day in DU
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 03:51 PM
Oct 2015

Another day refreshing my ignore list ...

Those who reject the repeal of Glass Steagal and embrace degenerate trade deals like TPP have no place in MY life ...

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
14. Right, so I ssume you have documentation of HRC "embracing" TPP, right?
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:03 PM
Oct 2015

You didn't read the first line from her financial plan either I'll bet.

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
21. And then what? And then nothing.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:11 PM
Oct 2015

What a plan. Toss the financial markets into disarray with no other plans.

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
12. More on this from Paul Krugman
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:00 PM
Oct 2015
"For what it’s worth, Mrs. Clinton had the better case. Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake. But it’s not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers, which don’t take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasn’t."


Plus this line about who believes Clinton will actually follow through ...

"Well, if Wall Street’s attitude and its political giving are any indication, financiers themselves believe that any Democrat, Mrs. Clinton very much included, would be serious about policing their industry’s excesses. And that’s why they’re doing all they can to elect a Republican."


Link here.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
15. Then why the hell do they give Clinton so much damn money? They don't just throw their money
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:04 PM
Oct 2015

down the toilet. They invest their money and expect a return on their investment.

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
17. the "stats" that show financial institution contributions include aggregated individual donations
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:08 PM
Oct 2015

... because employer info is collected with the contribution. The corporations themselves are a much smaller percentage of Clinton's donors. Unions are her #1 donors.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
20. Yeah. Right. And what about the hundreds of thousands of dollars they
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:11 PM
Oct 2015

pay her to speak? Why would they give a damn what she had to say and pay her hundreds of thousands of dollars if she is planning on regulating them? I'm telling you these people don't spend their money on people who are going to make it harder for them to make ungodly amounts of money.

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
22. I am pretty sure that $$$ went to the Clinton Foundation.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:14 PM
Oct 2015

The Clinton Foundation helps women all over the world so it was money well spent.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
31. The speaking fees went directly to Bill and Hillary's account.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:39 PM
Oct 2015

How else do you think they went from "poor" when they left the WH to part of the 1% now?

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
44. Facts say otherwise
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 11:24 PM
Oct 2015
"The biggest fees brought in by Hillary Clinton for the foundation were between $250,001 and $500,000 from eight entities, including Citibank, N.A.; Fundacion Telmex, one of billionaire Carlos Slim’s foundations; Goldman Sachs Group Inc.; and the University of California-Los Angeles."


Link
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
53. PACS give to any candidate they expect has a shot at winning. They usually give more to their
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 11:34 AM
Oct 2015

"friends" like Republicans in this case, but they give to the likely Democratic candidate too. That happens for Prez and every other office, like state and local. We'll be better off without that money in politics, but until that happens, I'd take it with no promise of favors.

 

portlander23

(2,078 posts)
24. We can play dueling economists
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:17 PM
Oct 2015
Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Reform Wins Mixed Support From the Left

“In a lot of ways it was stronger than what I expected from her given her close Wall Street ties,” economist Dean Baker said about Clinton’s plan. But, he added, “I would like to go back to Glass-Steagall to have the strict separation” between commercial and investment banking.

“It’s a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it we’re in danger of another one,” wrote Reich, now a professor at the University of Berkeley. “To this day some Wall Street apologists argue Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have prevented the 2008 crisis because the real culprits were nonbanks like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. Baloney.”

“While the details we’ve seen of Sec. Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street accountability plan appears to demonstrate a genuine commitment to ensuring criminals on Wall Street aren’t treated differently than criminals on Main Street, her continued rejection of a new Glass-Steagall is troubling,” said Neil Sroka, spokesman for Democracy for America, a progressive group with one million members.


Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street problem: She’s still going too easy on the banksters

The High Frequency Trading (HFT) provision would put a cap on market order cancellations, a practice often used by traders who employ super computers and sophisticated software to trade at speeds that are unimaginably small. It targets tactics where HFT traders place large numbers of orders to buy or sell, leaving the impression among others in the market that prices are going to move up or down imminently. The other market participants react like a herd to position themselves for the anticipated market move. The HFT traders then cancel the orders and take advantage of the herd activity that they have incited, in essence making the herd back track through them. Secretary Clinton suggests that this makes markets less stable. It does so on the margin, but the instability primarily affects short term volatility. Her tax proposal is mostly about penalizing an unfair practice.

This should not be confused with a true financial transaction tax (FTT), a measure proposed by presidential rival Bernie Sanders and many strong advocates of Wall Street reform. It would impose a small tax on all transactions, not orders that never become transactions. The FTT (together with other market reforms) would be an important curb on the “quarterly capitalism” that Secretary Clinton has properly cited as a drag on economic growth and contributor to income and wealth inequality. Quarterly capitalism is caused by short-termism of corporate management and shareholders driven by the dominance of the trading culture that fetishizes short swing share price changes. The FTT would slow down transactions and curb excessive market churning by speculators, while also raising substantial revenues. The order cancelation tax would not raise any where close to the same level of revenue since it would effectively stop the practice of tactical mass order cancelation. In addition, the HFT tactic addressed by the cancellation tax, while important, is just one element of excessive trading activity. Moreover, it is trading that happens so quickly that it is imperceptible by shareholding investors and management. It is indeed parasitic and costs the economy money, but it is not a cause of quarterly capitalism.


Mrs. Clinton has used the dodge that Glass-Steagall was not the exact trigger of the 2007 crisis as a way of dodging any serious reform. She has yet to answer why not separate the banks, and why not break up too large to fail banks vs putting out easily gamed rules regarding specific measurements of risk.

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
26. Finally, a decent, sensible reply, thank you, ... though I am not sure your guy
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:25 PM
Oct 2015

has read the details of Clinton's plan. Doesn't seem like it. Also, "dodge" doesn't seem quite right in light of ...

And repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake. But it’s not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers, which don’t take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasn’t.



Dueling economists, I like that ... especially since my guy has a Nobel prize
 

portlander23

(2,078 posts)
28. That does not address the questions
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:32 PM
Oct 2015

Why does Mrs. Clinton oppose separating the banks in the way that had worked for decades?

Why does Mrs. Clinton oppose a very sensible and simple financial transaction tax?

Why does Mrs. Clinton oppose breaking up the large banks?

If Mrs. Clinton's plan is so good at regulating Wall Street, why are they contributing so much money to her campaign?

Mr. Krugman is entitled to his positions, and you are more than free to make an appeal to authority to silence criticism, but that does not address the questions at hand that Mr. Sanders and Mr. O'Malley are raising.

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
46. Ok. I'll play a little ...
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 11:37 PM
Oct 2015

#1. Banks had been merging for decades under Glass-Stegall. How often was GS invoked to prevent mergers? How many times has GS been invoked to break up a large bank?

#2 She does impose a fee ... from her plan "Impose a “risk fee” on the largest financial institutions. Dodd-Frank’s reforms and higher capital requirements on the largest banks are already helping address the problem of “Too Big to Fail.”

#3. From her plan "Require firms that are too large and too risky to be managed effectively to reorganize, downsize, or break apart."

#4. Those contributions are aggregates grouped my the individual donors' employer not donations from the corporations themselves.

Krugman sums up with ....


In other words, while there are some differences in financial policy between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, as a practical matter they’re trivial compared with the yawning gulf with Republicans.
 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
38. Linus Pauling had two Nobel prizes...
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 05:55 PM
Oct 2015

Linus Pauling, Ph.D. (1901-1994), was the only person ever to win two unshared Nobel prizes. He received these awards for chemistry in 1954 and for peace in 1962. He contributed greatly to the development of chemical theories. His impact on the health marketplace, however, was anything but laudable.

Pauling is largely responsible for the widespread misbelief that high doses of vitamin C are effective against colds and other illnesses. In 1968, he postulated that people's needs for vitamins and other nutrients vary markedly and that to maintain good health, many people need amounts of nutrients much greater than the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs). And he speculated that megadoses of certain vitamins and minerals might well be the treatment of choice for some forms of mental illness. He termed this approach "orthomolecular," meaning "right molecule." After that, he steadily expanded the list of illnesses he believed could be influenced by "orthomolecular" therapy and the number of nutrients suitable for such use. No responsible medical or nutrition scientists share these views.
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
43. Apples, meet oranges ... Pauling didn't win his Nobel prize in Nutrition
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 11:18 PM
Oct 2015

Krugman won for Economics and that is what he is commenting on as regards this thread.

Thank you for the irrelevant distraction.

 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
48. Linus Pauling won his Nobel Prizes for chemistry...
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 07:09 AM
Oct 2015

He had no expertise in nutrition and as the article quoted makes clear, was a bit of a quack about Vitamin C. Shockley won a Nobel and went nuts about eugenics.

My point was that citing a Nobel Prize is not a foolproof way to win an argument. There are some nuts that won the Nobel Prize for Economics.

However, I do very much agree with Professor Krugman.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
27. Paul Krugman is not saying that we do not need Glass-Steagall.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:29 PM
Oct 2015

He is saying that the repeal of Glass-Steagall did not alone cause the 2008 crash. And in your second Krugman paragraph he is saying that Wall Street is trying to buy their way out of being regulated again.

So you don't think we need that 80 year old law. How old are you?

I am 74 years old and I know the difference between then and now. Up until the repeal of Glass-Steagall any deposit I made to my bank stayed in that bank or was invested in local projects. That would have included any savings or pension that I had.

If I wanted to invest in riskier ventures I took the money out of my safe bank and placed it in a separate investment bank. I had a choice. After the repeal I no longer had that choice because the banks are combined. GLass-Steagall is not so much about the rich putting their money in risky bets as it was to keep my personal money safe.

That personal money was even safer because of FDIC insurance that would pay if the bank (individual bank) crashed. But when they did crash in 2008 there was not enough money in the FDIC fund to cover the lose (too big to fail) so we had to bail the banksters out. Most of us who lost got nothing back.

Her plan is not about little people like me. It is about letting the banks continue to be too big to fail and just keep an eye on them. That is not very comforting. At least to someone who was safe up until 2008.

George II

(67,782 posts)
32. The only details people knew about TPP were those leaked, and leaked by people who were.....
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:41 PM
Oct 2015

....against it anyway. No doubt the "leaks" were cherry-picked for their most damaging nature.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
37. But that's not true at all, many groups of many interests have been contributing to and or opposing
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 05:52 PM
Oct 2015

aspects of the TPP for years now, including LGBT groups and Labor groups, over all sorts of very obvious specifics such as the favored status going to countries with serious human rights abuses enshrined in their laws and the need to keep medicines available internationally to those who need them efficiently and in a cost effective manner.
You have no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/lgbt-leaders-urge-president-obama-to-address-human-rights-violations-in-bru

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/Pride-at-Works-head-discusses-Brunei-womens-groups/48310.html

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
33. Read an analysis of it by a law prof in The Atlantic.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:46 PM
Oct 2015

It's more or less a rearrangement of the deck furniture on the Titanic and depends largely on the good will of the banksters.

Probably was actually written by some interns chained up in Goldman's dungeon.

A pathetic joke.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
35. It reads like more middlegrounding
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:56 PM
Oct 2015

Basicaly the notion that whatever place is exactly between two given points must absolutely be the "correct" one. This is the intellectual failure of centrism, this goldilocks fallacy. Sometimes - with shocking frequency in fact - the correct answer IS one of the "extreme" points, and the "middle way" is just as wrong as the other "extreme."

Clinton's proposals are good politics - making all the right mouth noises and hand motions to cool off some of the left, while actually not being impactful enough to really piss off the people on the right. Of course between those two sides, it's the right that has the resources to take all these proposals to the court, so it ends up leaning in their favor (regardless of what Clinton's intent is - I'm willing ot give her the benefit of the doubt that her heart's in the right place.)

The problem is that what makes for good politics does not necessarily make for good policy.

 

w4rma

(31,700 posts)
42. Glass-Steagal is obviously all or nothing. It can't be watered down, really.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:51 PM
Oct 2015

Clinton's plan is BEGGING to be watered down. And it would be. Either immediately, or a few years later when there is less attention paid to it.

EndElectoral

(4,213 posts)
47. Stiglitz in favor of Glass-Steagall, E. Warren and Bernie in favor of Glass-Steagall.
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 12:19 AM
Oct 2015

Good enough for me.

 

YabaDabaNoDinoNo

(460 posts)
49. Lots of pretty words that the rubes will lap up.
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 08:32 AM
Oct 2015

I call it BS but I have been around for a while so I am not easily fooled either.




 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
55. Fortunately as of 2014, we have the Volcker Rule which has been called "Glass-Steagall in spirit."
Sun Oct 18, 2015, 11:42 AM
Oct 2015
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»So how many of you have r...