Particularly No. 9 which describes the Hillary fanatics to a tee.

favor of breaking up the big banks when Bush was President and the economy crashed.

Some of us who were leading the charge against the Bush Admin started having our attacks blunted here by people we would now call establishment supporters. They weren't so much bothered by the behavior before that as much as they were bothered that it wasn't "our" people doing it.

Now all the Hillary fanatics trash any suggestion of doing so--because her Majesty doesn't support it. It is sad really. I've certainly lost a lot of respect for many people here. It has been eye opening.

Team Hill is encouraging this. I studied a lot of economics during the Bush Era to track what they were doing. The idea that we have no way forward except the way we've been doing it is a carefully cultivated rejection of all other options in favor of the people who are currently benefiting.

Sorry, Climate Change does not give a damn about what the 1% wants.

carefully-culled, veal-penned, broken-down Dems who literally don't care what a candidate supports as long as they're in the right party and "can win" don't

Background Paper
The WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS): Implications for Regulation of Financial Services in the U.S.

https://www.citizen.org/documents/WTO,GATSandfinancialservicesderegulationFORUPLOAD102108.pdf


SUMMARY: Deregulation of the financial service sector – including banking, insurance, asset
management, pension funds, securities, financial information, and financial advisory services – has
been among the most important, but least discussed aspects of the World Trade Organization’s
(WTO) agenda since its 1995 inception. As part of its original WTO commitments, the United
States agreed to conform a broad array of financial services to comply with regulatory limits
established in the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Given the decade-plus
push by various financial service firms to roll back domestic regulation, some of the U.S. WTO
commitments simply locked into place existing policies. In other cases, for instance regarding the
“firewall” policies established in the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act that forbade bank holding companies
from operating other financial services, U.S. WTO commitments that contradicted domestic policy
were used to push for domestic revocation of existing laws. The United States then used ongoing
WTO financial service negotiations to export the U.S. model of extreme financial service
deregulation to the other 100-plus WTO signatory countries, including through a 1999 WTO
Financial Service Agreement (FSA.)
***
Prior to establishment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 and the
WTO in 1995, the scope of trade agreements was limited to setting the terms of exchange of goods
across borders, namely cutting tariffs and lifting quotas. The WTO and NAFTA were called “trade
agreements” but they are more accurately understood as international commercial agreements. More
broadly, they can be understood as delivery mechanisms for a particular economic model often
known as neoliberalism. WTO, NAFTA and various NAFTA-modeled “Free Trade Agreements”
(FTAs) include binding rules that limit the parameters for signatory nations’ service-sector,
investment, procurement, intellectual-property, environmental and safety policies. In addition to this
deregulatory agenda, the pacts establish new property rights regarding intellectual property and
foreign-investor treatment.
Each WTO signatory country is required to “ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and
administrative procedures with its obligations.” 1 In contrast to the operation of most other
international agreements, this new generation of “trade” agreements is strongly enforced. Signatory
countries that fail to conform domestic laws to the pacts’ terms may be challenged before dispute....

Thats from https://www.citizen.org/documents/WTO,GATSandfinancialservicesderegulationFORUPLOAD102108.pdf

See also:

https://www.citizen.org/documents/memo-gats-conflict-with-bank-size-limits-may-10-2011.pdf

also

https://www.citizen.org/documents/FinanceReregulationFactSheetFINAL.pdf