Elizabeth Warren gives a little history lesson about financial collapses and calls out ...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,647
5,220
136
Lol. Ridiculous. She's almost 70 years old and accomplished tons and you're judging her by something she said when she was like under 20 and was at best slightly misleading. Let's be sane here and keep opinions and concerns within the scope of reality.

As for the banking regulations at hand, some could be tweaked but its unlikely this bill is a tweak. Again I would parrot what was already said before. Beware of bankers who promise good behavior and honest self-policing.

Well there is that, plus she's rich, so let's not forget that. Can't trust them.

But we can clearly trust bankers. Besides, if we don't we're just punishing success of the jerb makers.

Dumb class warfare loving libigouhls...
Maga!
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,025
2,593
136
... the prostitutes in congress who are going to vote on the banking bill

https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/971825178056581123

Revolting. Of course the GOP is going to vote for it, but the handful of blue dog democrats voting for it should be ashamed of themselves.
Whoa whoa whoa! I think prostitutes would be grossly offended by being compared to most congressmen. Prostitutes at least tell you straight up who they're working for and when they screw someone both parties get something out of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,734
18,005
146
Whoa whoa whoa! I think prostitutes would be grossly offended by being compared to most congressmen. Prostitutes at least tell you straight up who they're working for and when they screw someone both parties get something out of it.

And the going rate is negotiated before hand, services discussed, doesn't change as soon as you look the other way to get a drink of water :)
 

Cozarkian

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,352
95
91
No, the point is that it's a "fact" that is not true and yet you state that this lie is a true fact in your opening statement. <shrug>

It's just an argumentative technique. You don't need to refute immaterial facts, so you concede them instead.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,348
3,426
126
Now that we got that out of the way, is she right or wrong about this banking bill being a bad idea and why?

She's wrong about the banking bill. Raising the $50bn cap is a good idea. Free credit freezes are a good idea. Improved handling of the dwindling number of community banks (who are likely to serve rural areas large banks won't touch) is a good idea. Prevention of loan repayment acceleration after a cosigner dies is a good thing
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
She's wrong about the banking bill. Raising the $50bn cap is a good idea. Free credit freezes are a good idea. Improved handling of the dwindling number of community banks (who are likely to serve rural areas large banks won't touch) is a good idea. Prevention of loan repayment acceleration after a cosigner dies is a good thing

I don't understand what "free credit freezes" means. Please explain.

I also suspect there's a lot more to this bill than what you mention.

I'm really not comfortable with the macro economic prospects of cutting taxes at the top & reducing financial regulation. We've seen this before, haven't we?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
I don't understand what "free credit freezes" means. Please explain.

I also suspect there's a lot more to this bill than what you mention.

I'm really not comfortable with the macro economic prospects of cutting taxes at the top & reducing financial regulation. We've seen this before, haven't we?

You know how Equifax was hacked, leaving millions to have their personal info exposed? One way a consumer can protect themselves is to enable a credit freeze. This will prevent anyone from opening up accounts in their name. I'm hoping that enabling such a freeze would actually work as opposed to just making scammers have to go through one more hoop to get what they want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeymikec

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,348
3,426
126
I don't understand what "free credit freezes" means. Please explain.

Wait...really?

I also suspect there's a lot more to this bill than what you mention.

Those are the highlights places like the WSJ, Vox, and CNBC articles I have read are going over. Please feel free to do your own reading and add anything that was missed.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Wait...really?



Those are the highlights places like the WSJ, Vox, and CNBC articles I have read are going over. Please feel free to do your own reading and add anything that was missed.

Sigh. It was an honest question. The stuff I'm picking up is different, like reduced reserve requirements for big banks-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...internal-report-shows/?utm_term=.d4a5ebddbecf

Allowing greater risk-

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/06/bank-regulation-citigroup-cbo/

If we think about it at all, recent tax changes should inject a lot of hot money chasing returns into the financial system. The only way to hold up returns in such an environment is greater risk, not just for investors but for the institutions of lending as well.

Working people are obviously subject to forces beyond their control. It's not like all the people who got laid off in the great recession weren't doing their jobs. It's just that their Capitalist economic leadership doesn't care about them one bit.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,592
7,673
136
Someone who has lied about her own history is the last person that should be lecturing the rest of on history. She's angry because the CFPB is being gutted under Trump. Dodd-Frank was an attempt to bury the shit those two orchestrated that led to the great recession. The legislation went too far and a rollback of some of the provisions is long overdue.

Fauxcahontas, is just another rich progressive trying to assuage her guilt by fooling herself that she's looking out for the little people. Screw her.

1. FFS her parents told he she was part native they always believed that. You don't believe your parents?

2. Name Calling is a sign you don't have an argument.

3. I doubt you have read anything about her other than what the your right wing talking point tell you.

4. "Those two?" Your saying Elizabeth warren was responsible for the great recession? Seriously?

5. What provisions of DF need to be rolled back? Quick before you google it.

6. She is one of the few who is looking out for the little people. Who would be your pick? Trump??
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,284
5,057
136
The comments
1. FFS her parents told he she was part native they always believed that. You don't believe your parents?

2. Name Calling is a sign you don't have an argument.

3. I doubt you have read anything about her other than what the your right wing talking point tell you.

4. "Those two?" Your saying Elizabeth warren was responsible for the great recession? Seriously?

5. What provisions of DF need to be rolled back? Quick before you google it.

6. She is one of the few who is looking out for the little people. Who would be your pick? Trump??
Number two is the go to response in P&N. One of the posters here never responds with anything but vulgar insults. I assume the person is a teenage boy based on the lack of maturity and limited vocabulary. My only blocked member.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,333
6,040
126
The cool thing about Native Americans and Whites is that they are both descended from Black Africans, all of whom depending of conditions can be convinced they and they alone are inferior or superior, all of which itself in turn are based on various competitive comparisons regarding absurd notions that this or that totally subjective trait confers moral superiority. The long and the short of all that, of course, is that imbeciles come in all colors and imaginary racial types.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,592
7,673
136
I am guilty of it but I try to limit it for those rare occasions when I need to blow off some steam. Like I might say, "this mother poking silk legged mastodon big butt chucky chewed cheto face" then I'm recharging my battery.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,348
3,426
126
Sigh. It was an honest question.

I have no doubt. A philosophical difference in the approach to gaining knowledge I guess. To me its odd that a 2 second proactive google search on a phrase was not attempted.

The stuff I'm picking up is different, like reduced reserve requirements for big banks-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...internal-report-shows/?utm_term=.d4a5ebddbecf

Besides a doubtfully hypothetical risk (and a tiny risk below) what else are you picking up? Given that the FDIC and Fed currently seem to be the ones left to determine if the rule applies its unlikely this would come to pass. Neither institution made any recent changes to their viewpoints on regulation. Not even Citi or JPM think this rule will apply to them


The cost of the risk in your second link is absurdly small in comparison to the banking industry. The estimated cost of implementing the bill over 10 years is 0.8% of the FDICs current insurance balance. Spread that out over the 10 years their estimate covers and its a rounding error. The added risk comes from making smaller banks more viable and competitive - slowing the growth of 'too big to fail' institutions by acquisition and slowing the growing trend of reduction of rural bank branches. A rounding error in FDIC risk seems a worthwhile exchange to attempt to slow those current trends as both of those pose a much greater risk to the economy

If we think about it at all, recent tax changes should inject a lot of hot money chasing returns into the financial system. The only way to hold up returns in such an environment is greater risk

Increasing interest rates (which is expected to continue) is a great way to slow a hot economy and enable more attractive returns in less risky investments.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Increasing interest rates (which is expected to continue) is a great way to slow a hot economy and enable more attractive returns in less risky investments.

Why would the price of money go up when there's greater supply? And if we're trying to slow a hot economy why is the GOP pumping more money in at the top & making it easier to lend?