Senator Warren steps up to the plate

[realibrad]

Wall Street, like all most every industry "invests" in both parties all the time. That's a fact. To see if these contributions actually mean anything, one would need to look at what these industries have received in exchange for their money.

So I'll ask again; what has Wall Street received for their contributions to hillary? We aren't talking about bill clinton, we are talking about hillary.

She was in support of the Mexican bailout, supported and voted for the bailout in 2008. In her speeches from what we do know she is not huge on reform. She is not Bill but she supports most of his policies.

But, is your point that wall Street gives her millions with no expectation in return? Wall Street supports people on both sides but not all on both sides. There is this gaping hole that you need to fill logically. What do the bankers expect in return? You seem to be saying they expect nothing.

 

[fskimospy]

She was in support of the Mexican bailout, supported and voted for the bailout in 2008. In her speeches from what we do know she is not huge on reform. She is not Bill but she supports most of his policies.

But, is your point that wall Street gives her millions with no expectation in return? Wall Street supports people on both sides but not all on both sides. There is this gaping hole that you need to fill logically. What do the bankers expect in return? You seem to be saying they expect nothing.

Wall Street gave a lot more to Obama than to McCain in 2008. Obama then passed Dodd-Frank. What did Wall Street get for their money?

 

[Jhhnn]

She was in support of the Mexican bailout, supported and voted for the bailout in 2008. In her speeches from what we do know she is not huge on reform. She is not Bill but she supports most of his policies.

But, is your point that wall Street gives her millions with no expectation in return? Wall Street supports people on both sides but not all on both sides. There is this gaping hole that you need to fill logically. What do the bankers expect in return? You seem to be saying they expect nothing.

The reasonable expectation is that they gain access, that their voice will be heard if not heeded.

 

[realibrad]

Wall Street gave a lot more to Obama than to McCain in 2008. Obama then passed Dodd-Frank. What did Wall Street get for their money?

Massive amounts of bailouts and stimulus when the republicans at the time of the crisis wanted to not do. They saw that bush wanted to wait it out to see and it scared the shit out of the banks. Democrats were far more likely to try and protect the jobs and economy. I think they were right too. The economy was a mess and everyone was freaking out. That is not good for business and the republicans would have done things that would have scared wall street.

So yes, Obama did pass Dodd-Frank, but what was the alternative? Sound investment to me.

 

[fskimospy]

Massive amounts of bailouts and stimulus when the republicans at the time of the crisis wanted to not do. They saw that bush wanted to wait it out to see and it scared the shit out of the banks. Democrats were far more likely to try and protect the jobs and economy. I think they were right too. The economy was a mess and everyone was freaking out. That is not good for business and the republicans would have done things that would have scared wall street.

So yes, Obama did pass Dodd-Frank, but what was the alternative? Sound investment to me.

The bailouts were signed by Bush, not Obama so donations to Obama wouldn't have affected that. As for fiscal stimulus it's hard to see what direct interest the banks had in the ARRA outside of a general interest in the economy doing well. Other monetary stimulus measures like QE were enacted by the Fed, not Obama.

So seriously, what did the banks get for all their money? It looks like a big fat nothing to me. There's a reason why Wall Street massively shifted its donations to Republicans after Dodd-Frank.

 

[realibrad]

The bailouts were signed by Bush, not Obama so donations to Obama wouldn't have affected that. As for fiscal stimulus it's hard to see what direct interest the banks had in the ARRA outside of a general interest in the economy doing well. Other monetary stimulus measures like QE were enacted by the Fed, not Obama.

So seriously, what did the banks get for all their money? It looks like a big fat nothing to me. There's a reason why Wall Street massively shifted its donations to Republicans after Dodd-Frank.

TARP was Bush, but the stimulus and auto bailouts were not. The republicans were willing to let the economy burn down and the Democrats were not. I think I would have rather had the Dem plan, but that is what they got. The banks were worried that if the government did not step in the whole words economy was stop. Banks make money of investment. If the global economy starts to fall apart, that money flow stops.

 

[LegendKiller]

Not sure why anybody who is educated about the "bailout" would hate it. It is ridiculous it is used as a political pawn.

 

[realibrad]

Not sure why anybody who is educated about the "bailout" would hate it. It is ridiculous it is used as a political pawn.

I hate that it was needed. Is that the same?

 

[LegendKiller]

I hate that it was needed. Is that the same?

No. I hate that it was needed also.

 

[FerrelGeek]

The only one I've heard yap is your beloved Hillary. And that stupid stunt of hers is going to haunt her all the way to November.

And though everyone, with the possible exception of you, knows that she's a corporate whore, whatever she said to the biggies at GS is relevant to her campaign. What are they giving her? What is she going to do for them once she's in office?

If it was a rep candidate, you'd want to know

It's just another right wing dog whistle that sets 'em to yapping.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Wall Street gave a lot more to Obama than to McCain in 2008. Obama then passed Dodd-Frank. What did Wall Street get for their money?

The rise of shadow banking and the continuation of the "too big to fail" status quo for starters.

 

[fskimospy]

TARP was Bush, but the stimulus and auto bailouts were not. The republicans were willing to let the economy burn down and the Democrats were not. I think I would have rather had the Dem plan, but that is what they got. The banks were worried that if the government did not step in the whole words economy was stop. Banks make money of investment. If the global economy starts to fall apart, that money flow stops.

If we're willing to put 'preventing a global economic catastrophe' under the list of things that Wall Street wanted that's fine, but by that logic Wall Street donations are a GOOD thing, since presumably it's in everyone's interests not to have a global meltdown.

The premise here has to be that Wall Street donations -> people doing things for Wall Street that benefit them and harm the rest of us as if it didn't harm anyone else, what would be the purpose in opposing it? The only actions we've pinpointed so far are those that were generally good for the entire economy and Dodd-Frank, which was good for the country IMO but bad for Wall Street.

 

[fskimospy]

Continuation of the "too big to fail" status quo for starters.

The markets disagree with you on that.

As I linked before, the GAO analyzed the lower borrowing costs that 'too big to fail' banks enjoyed over smaller banks in the years before the crisis. Since Dodd-Frank was passed that gap has essentially disappeared.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-621

GAO's analysis, which addresses some limitations of these studies, suggests that large bank holding companies had lower funding costs than smaller ones during the financial crisis but provides mixed evidence of such advantages in recent years. However, most models suggest that such advantages may have declined or reversed.

Looks like the status quo is gone, or at least dramatically diminished. Isn't that great news?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The markets disagree with you on that.

As I linked before, the GAO analyzed the lower borrowing costs that 'too big to fail' banks enjoyed over smaller banks in the years before the crisis. Since Dodd-Frank was passed that gap has essentially disappeared.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-621



Looks like the status quo is gone, or at least dramatically diminished. Isn't that great news?

What about AIG?

 

[fskimospy]

What about AIG?

I don't understand the question. You said that the status quo of too big to fail was retained. The markets appear to disagree. Since that's what you appear to have wanted it seems that you should be happy about this.

It also appears very unlikely that big banks would prefer not to have funding cost advantages over their rivals so they would be unhappy about this. If that's what their money bought they must be very unhappy indeed.

 

[realibrad]

If we're willing to put 'preventing a global economic catastrophe' under the list of things that Wall Street wanted that's fine, but by that logic Wall Street donations are a GOOD thing, since presumably it's in everyone's interests not to have a global meltdown.

The premise here has to be that Wall Street donations -> people doing things for Wall Street that benefit them and harm the rest of us as if it didn't harm anyone else, what would be the purpose in opposing it? The only actions we've pinpointed so far are those that were generally good for the entire economy and Dodd-Frank, which was good for the country IMO but bad for Wall Street.

Wall Street is not out to destroy the world. Wall Street wants to make money. They have a vested interest in the world because that is how they make their money. Voting to save the world from the mess they had a hand in making is rational. They also lobbied to create the system that would eventually allow them to collapse the world. They are giving lots of money to Hillary because they think she will offer them better things than others would give them.

I think you and the other guy disagree with influence here. I bet that you admit that the money thrown her way has some influence. I cant see any reason the banks would throw the millions her way and expect that she is just there to make their lives harder. The argument he made was that the money given to her was not about furthering banking interests. I think that is silly.

 

[realibrad]

I don't understand the question. You said that the status quo of too big to fail was retained. The markets appear to disagree. Since that's what you appear to have wanted it seems that you should be happy about this.

It also appears very unlikely that big banks would prefer not to have funding cost advantages over their rivals so they would be unhappy about this. If that's what their money bought they must be very unhappy indeed.

To be fair, the markets got it wrong that everything was good in 2007. Had the markets realized what they were doing, they should have stopped as they wiped out their wealth.

 

[trenchfoot]

TARP was Bush, but the stimulus and auto bailouts were not. The republicans were willing to let the economy burn down and the Democrats were not. I think I would have rather had the Dem plan, but that is what they got. The banks were worried that if the government did not step in the whole words economy was stop. Banks make money of investment. If the global economy starts to fall apart, that money flow stops.

Not to change the subject, but I was just wondering if you thought that situation occurred in part because those Repubs who were beholden to big business interests wanted to create a really good chance for themselves to get rid of quite a few large unions, especially those in the automotive industries while the Dems were wanting the opposite?

With hindsight, I've noticed how the Repubs were more interested in protecting their very well to do benefactors while the Dems were prioritizing saving blue collar livelihoods at the time.

And as a note of interest, and correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't there a number of criminal prosecutions and convictions against big businesses and their executives for committing fraud within the auspices of the TARP program? I just wanted to mention that as a retort to those that keep harping on about why deregulating big business was good for the economy. 😉

 

[BoberFett]

dog whistle

Is there some kind of mailing list for nutters where you all get your buzzword du jour?

 

[fskimospy]

To be fair, the markets got it wrong that everything was good in 2007. Had the markets realized what they were doing, they should have stopped as they wiped out their wealth.

Well sure, markets can absolutely be wrong. That's one of the biggest reasons for regulation to begin with, after all. Still, they provide an important source of information.

If you have a different way to look at the relative effects of regulation on 'too big to fail' that you think is better than what the GAO used I'd be genuinely interested to see it. That being said, this is a pretty decent indication that the status quo on 'too big to fail' has not been kept.

 

[BoberFett]

'Merrica had a chance at nominating Sanders as one-of-two general election candidates, and failed spectacularly, possibly because of Strongman Trump's ego and ability to con the tribalists with "others" language. Too bad so sad.

Wow, Democrats are dumber than I thought. You let the Republicans pick your primary winner.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't understand the question. You said that the status quo of too big to fail was retained. The markets appear to disagree. Since that's what you appear to have wanted it seems that you should be happy about this.

It also appears very unlikely that big banks would prefer not to have funding cost advantages over their rivals so they would be unhappy about this. If that's what their money bought they must be very unhappy indeed.

AIG is too big to fail.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-05-30/aig-could-happen-again-without-dodd-frank-fix

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Is there some kind of mailing list for nutters where you all get your buzzword du jour?

When someone uses the term "dog whistle", it really means I'm a nutter and too stupid to know it.

 

[realibrad]

Not to change the subject, but I was just wondering if you thought that situation occurred in part because those Repubs who were beholden to big business interests wanted to create a really good chance for themselves to get rid of quite a few large unions, especially those in the automotive industries while the Dems were wanting the opposite?

With hindsight, I've noticed how the Repubs were more interested in protecting their very well to do benefactors while the Dems were prioritizing saving blue collar livelihoods at the time.

And as a note of interest, and correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't there a number of criminal prosecutions and convictions against big businesses and their executives for committing fraud within the auspices of the TARP program? I just wanted to mention that as a retort to those that keep harping on about why deregulating big business was good for the economy. 😉

If that was their plan, it saved the auto industry. The UAW was going to kill the auto industry. Most think the UAW was just for higher wages, but it also kept brands that were money pits alive. The US auto industry was slowly dying and the UAW had a huge part. I don't want to say that they did that though, because I don't think they are smart enough to do that.

Also, so far as I know, there were only fines and small ones at that for the fraud. The fines paid were a lot smaller than the money made, so it was still a win for those people.

 

[fskimospy]

AIG is too big to fail.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-05-30/aig-could-happen-again-without-dodd-frank-fix

Ah good, an editorial. Regardless of the fact that it's yet again another bad source from you, what it is saying is that AIG could fail again in the future from a cause similar to what they encountered in the financial crisis. That does not cover 'too big to fail'.

It is arguing for further strengthening our financial regulations however, which is something I'm glad both you and I appear to agree on. Basically every Republican candidate for president wants to repeal Dodd-Frank however, which the author of your editorial pretty clearly thinks would be a bad thing. Then of course there is title II liquidation authority in Dodd-Frank, etc.

It's always interesting to see how hard people try to convince themselves that someone implementing what they claim to want is a bad thing so long as that fix came from the wrong political sports team.