2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWilliam Greider -- an all-too-ignored voice of truth -- debunks Clinton's financial analysis
Greider has been telling the truth since the 1980's about the bi-partisan looting of America.
He nails it again. A must read article about the dynamics that led to the crash of 2008.
http://billmoyers.com/story/hillary-clinton-is-whitewashing-the-financial-catastrophe/
Hillary Clintons recent op-ed in The New York Times, How Id Rein In Wall Street, was intended to reassure nervous Democrats who fear she is still in thrall to those mega-bankers of New York who crashed the American economy. Clintons brisk recital of plausible reform ideas might convince wishful thinkers who are not familiar with the complexities of banking. But informed skeptics, myself included, see a disturbing message in her argument that ought to alarm innocent supporters.
Candidate Clinton is essentially whitewashing the financial catastrophe. She has produced a clumsy rewrite of what caused the 2008 collapse, one that conveniently leaves her husband out of the story. He was the president who legislated the predicate for Wall Streets meltdown. Hillary Clintons redefinition of the reform problem deflects the blame from Wall Streets most powerful institutions, like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs and instead fingers less celebrated players that failed. In roundabout fashion, Hillary Clinton sounds like she is assuring old friends and donors in the financial sector that, if she becomes president, she will not come after them.
The seminal event that sowed financial disaster was the repeal of the New Deals Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which had separated banking into different realms: investment banks, which organize capital investors for risk-taking ventures; and deposit-holding banks, which serve people as borrowers and lenders. That laws repeal, a great victory for Wall Street, was delivered by Bill Clinton in 1999, assisted by the Federal Reserve and the financial sectors armies of lobbyists. The universal banking model was saluted as a modernizing reform that liberated traditional banks to participate directly and indirectly in long-prohibited and vastly more profitable risk-taking.
SNIP
Yet Hillary Clinton asserts in her Times op-ed that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it. She claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the reckless behavior of institutions like Lehman Brothers or insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks. Her argument amounts to facile evasion that ignores the interconnected exposures. The Federal Reserve spent $180 billion bailing out AIG so AIG could pay back Goldman Sachs and other banks. If the Fed hadnt acted and had allowed AIG to fail, the banks would have gone down too.
SNIP
Actually, the most compelling witnesses for Senator Warrens argument are the two bankers who introduced this adventure in universal banking back in the 1990s. They used their political savvy and relentless muscle to seduce Bill Clinton and his so-called New Democrats. John Reed was CEO of Citicorp and led the charge. He has since apologized to the nation. Sandy Weill was chairman of the board and a brilliant financier who envisioned the possibilities of a single, all-purpose financial house, freed of governments narrow-minded regulations. They won politically, but at staggering cost to the country.
Weill confessed error back in 2012: What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking. Have banks do something thats not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, thats not going to be too big to fail.
John Reeds confession explained explicitly why their modernizing crusade failed for two fundamental business reasons......
MORE
thereismore
(13,326 posts)Will they read the message? I wonder.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)It will be dismissed as bashing Hillary or something like that
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)when she shows favor towards those who have long buttered her bread....
She doesn't have to be "just like" the rightwinger she'd be battling in the GE should she get that far, to still be unacceptable for all the reasons her supporters either support or are willing to overlook for whatever reason.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)they know exactly what they're voting for. They're just like her, so don't feel sorry for them. They deserve whatever she dishes out. It's everyone else, "the least of these", we need to care about. Her supporters know exactly what she is and they like it.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
Armstead
(47,803 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)The middle is fast becoming the "least." This election will likely be the death knell of the middle class if a 1%er is elected. We can't afford to let that happen.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)concreteblue
(626 posts)The idea that the smaller banks caused the crisis, when their bailout $$ went to GS, is not "facile". It is obscene, from someone who knows better. It is called Lying.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The seminal event that sowed financial disaster was the repeal of the New Deals Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which had separated banking into different realms: investment banks, which organize capital investors for risk-taking ventures; and deposit-holding banks, which serve people as borrowers and lenders. That laws repeal, a great victory for Wall Street, was delivered by Bill Clinton in 1999, assisted by the Federal Reserve and the financial sectors armies of lobbyists. The universal banking model was saluted as a modernizing reform that liberated traditional banks to participate directly and indirectly in long-prohibited and vastly more profitable risk-taking.
SNIP
Yet Hillary Clinton asserts in her Times op-ed that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it. [iShe claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the reckless behavior of institutions like Lehman Brothers or insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks. Her argument amounts to facile evasion that ignores the interconnected exposures. The Federal Reserve spent $180 billion bailing out AIG so AIG could pay back Goldman Sachs and other banks. If the Fed hadnt acted and had allowed AIG to fail, the banks would have gone down too.
SNIP
http://billmoyers.com/story/hillary-clinton-is-whitewashing-the-financial-catastrophe/
Hillary supporters need to be reminded that Hillary is a throw-back to the 1990s and that she DEFENDS the mistakes her husband made during those years.
As I have often said, I will vote for every other Democrat on my ballot in November 2016, but I will NEVER vote for Hillary. We need a new presence in the White House with new ideas and new plans for our nation.
Neither Jeb nor Hillary will be able to break from the past and forge our path into the future. A lot of change is needed and not solely in the area of the financial sector.
Hillary is wedded literally wedded to the past. We can do better. Bernie will.
Feel the Bern!
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)On this issue, TPP, and some others, her duplicity is quite transparent.
snot
(10,530 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Not all too ignored. There is just a certain group now all excited to blame Democrats for the mess of republicans.