2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSo 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.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Not I.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)But she will not do it
Persondem
(1,936 posts)Well, if Wall Streets 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 industrys excesses. And thats why theyre doing all they can to elect a Republican.
Link.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)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)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)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
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The banksters OWN her, lock stock and barrel.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)That's funny. Not-going-to-happen. This is just a part of the dog and pony show.
djean111
(14,255 posts)And, we would be airily and condescendingly told that this was just campaign blather, and not to be counted on.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Persondem
(1,936 posts)Paul Krugman like Clinton's plan better than Sanders'
Link here.
oasis
(49,151 posts)Poor fella.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)"Well, if Wall Streets 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 industrys excesses. And thats why theyre doing all they can to elect a Republican."
link
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)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)Gimme a break! Gimme Bernie!
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
Trajan
(19,089 posts)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 ...
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Persondem
(1,936 posts)You didn't read the first line from her financial plan either I'll bet.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)What a plan. Toss the financial markets into disarray with no other plans.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Persondem
(1,936 posts)"For what its 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 its not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from shadow banks like Lehman Brothers, which dont 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 hasnt."
Plus this line about who believes Clinton will actually follow through ...
"Well, if Wall Streets 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 industrys excesses. And thats why theyre doing all they can to elect a Republican."
Link here.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)down the toilet. They invest their money and expect a return on their investment.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)... 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)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)The Clinton Foundation helps women all over the world so it was money well spent.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Persondem
(1,936 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)How else do you think they went from "poor" when they left the WH to part of the 1% now?
Persondem
(1,936 posts)"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 Slims foundations; Goldman Sachs Group Inc.; and the University of California-Los Angeles."
Link
jwirr
(39,215 posts)for speaking engagements.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)"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.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)portlander23
(2,078 posts)Its a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it were 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 wouldnt have prevented the 2008 crisis because the real culprits were nonbanks like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. Baloney.
While the details weve seen of Sec. Hillary Clintons Wall Street accountability plan appears to demonstrate a genuine commitment to ensuring criminals on Wall Street arent 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 Clintons Wall Street problem: Shes still going too easy on the banksters
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)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 its not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from shadow banks like Lehman Brothers, which dont 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 hasnt.
Dueling economists, I like that ... especially since my guy has a Nobel prize
portlander23
(2,078 posts)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)#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-Franks 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 theyre trivial compared with the yawning gulf with Republicans.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)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)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)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)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.
Comodorio
(16 posts)but I will.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)You bothered to read it.
George II
(67,782 posts)....against it anyway. No doubt the "leaks" were cherry-picked for their most damaging nature.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)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)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)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.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)It wouldn't be exactly the same as the 80 year old law. You can see the differences here.
http://ourfinancialsecurity.org/blogs/wp-content/ourfinancialsecurity.org/uploads/2014/02/FAQ-21st-Century-Glass-Steagall1.pdf
w4rma
(31,700 posts)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)Good enough for me.
frylock
(34,825 posts)YabaDabaNoDinoNo
(460 posts)I call it BS but I have been around for a while so I am not easily fooled either.
NervousGuy
(26 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)zappaman
(20,605 posts)Califonz
(465 posts)and other fairy tales.