Trump to deregulate finance

[superstition]

The American Dream existed before the disgusting amount of consumerism that has infected our country. Credit and consumerism have wreaked havoc on the American mind. The amount we have burdened ourselves with debt is unconscionable, but I cannot blame the banks, we are not a child whose parents made us fat, we are adults, and must learn responsibility.

Oh brother. Where to begin?

You can start with a bit of reality here

and here

 

[cytg111]

The American Dream existed before the disgusting amount of consumerism that has infected our country. Credit and consumerism have wreaked havoc on the American mind. The amount we have burdened ourselves with debt is unconscionable, but I cannot blame the banks, we are not a child whose parents made us fat, we are adults, and must learn responsibility.

Why not blame the banks? Concentration of power there is so massive that corruption is obligatory. Without regulation of that power corruption runs rampant. At the end of the day, Banking does one thing : make the rich richer. I see banking as a necessary evil. But make no mistake!

 

[IronWing]

The American Dream existed before the disgusting amount of consumerism that has infected our country. Credit and consumerism have wreaked havoc on the American mind. The amount we have burdened ourselves with debt is unconscionable, but I cannot blame the banks, we are not a child whose parents made us fat, we are adults, and must learn responsibility.

Somewhere along the line, the American Dream of determining one's own path morphed into, "own a house".

 

[superstition]

Somewhere along the line, the American Dream of determining one's own path morphed into, "own a house".

And here.

 

[momeNt]

Oh brother. Where to begin?

You can start with a bit of reality here

and here

Giving me old news that is the basis of the Trump campaign? yes we know American labor markets are getting bulldozed by export economies. China exports tons of shit that our American ad executives think of intelligent new ways to make you want them. Corporate profits high, executive salaries up, Americans take on debt to make sure they catch the new TV sale before the superbowl. What about what I said is false?

 

[superstition]

It's helpful to actually read the material I linked to instead of imagining what it might be about.

 

[IronWing]

And here.

I wasn't disagreeing that the banks and the wealthy, with the assistance of the politicians they bought, have screwed over the lower classes.

 

[momeNt]

It's helpful to actually read the material I linked to instead of imagining what it might be about.

You tell me what I should take from the linked articles. Did banks create a housing value bubble? They were certainly part of it, but they did not create demand, they simply supplied the credit, and the ultimate decision was on the middle class as a whole to buy a house. As said before here, we became programmed to think the American Dream was "buy a house". Trump is playing right back into that apparently, by saying the American Dream is back, not a fan of that way of thinking.

 

[senseamp]

And medicine too. Be very careful with drugs approved under Trump, not going to be same level of scrutiny.

 

[pauldun170]

And here.

That CEO\Corporate Profits chart was intersesting.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2006-11-26/how-bill-clinton-helped-boost-ceo-pay
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2012/12/ceo-compensation-12-historical-pay-chart.html
http://www.nber.org/digest/feb98/w6213.html

 

[Jhhnn]

Destroy the livelihoods of regulation people = profit
Sweep a Democrat back into the White House to bail out the same people afterward = profit

Isn't it great to have "two" parties?

Like the "two" parties that passed Gramm-Leach-Bliley without so much as a veto from Clinton and which every Republican member of Congress voted for except Ron Paul?

What needs to be understood is that banking is absolutely necessary in our modern world. What also needs to be understood is that the enormous concentration of economic power is inherently unstable, that the greed of a few has too much sway over the fortunes of the many. They gamble with our welfare in a completely abstract way. In their world, we're just a commodity like any other. That's why we need to regulate their actions, to protect ourselves.

When we do that well bailouts are unnecessary. We alter the structure of the game towards more small winners instead of a few huge winners & a shitpile of losers.

That's also why we need to tax them to prevent & reverse over time the run away inequality we've experienced over the last 35 years of applied Reaganomics.

Financial deregulation & top tier tax cuts are what Repubs are all about & have been for a very long time. The rest of it is just well calculated bullshit to hold power.

 

[Jhhnn]

You tell me what I should take from the linked articles. Did banks create a housing value bubble? They were certainly part of it, but they did not create demand, they simply supplied the credit, and the ultimate decision was on the middle class as a whole to buy a house. As said before here, we became programmed to think the American Dream was "buy a house". Trump is playing right back into that apparently, by saying the American Dream is back, not a fan of that way of thinking.

Sigh. Home ownership has always been part of the American dream. It's a tangible & useful asset, particularly when the relative value of mortgage payments fades over decades & even more so when outright ownership is achieved.

The housing bubble threw all that to the wind.

You also confuse desire with demand. There are always a lot more people who want a house than the number of people who can afford one. When banks loan to people they know full well can't really support the payments they create false demand. They did so on the basis of enormous leverage & investor exuberance. They compounded that risk with derivative financial products that were pure gambling.

It's always been easy enough to get people to sign up for things they can't afford. Getting lenders to not do that to the extent that it collapses the economy is the only way to limit the damage.

 

[momeNt]

Sigh. Home ownership has always been part of the American dream. It's a tangible & useful asset, particularly when the relative value of mortgage payments fades over decades & even more so when outright ownership is achieved.

The housing bubble threw all that to the wind.

You also confuse desire with demand. There are always a lot more people who want a house than the number of people who can afford one. When banks loan to people they know full well can't really support the payments they create false demand. They did so on the basis of enormous leverage & investor exuberance. They compounded that risk with derivative financial products that were pure gambling.

It's always been easy enough to get people to sign up for things they can't afford. Getting lenders to not do that to the extent that it collapses the economy is the only way to limit the damage.

Eh, I don't buy that. It is not the only way to limit the damage. There are a lot of ways advocacy and awareness works well. Birth control for example. Why can't we advocate responsible borrowing?

 

[Double Trouble]

Smaller banks were going the way of the dodo bird before Dodd-Frank. The collapse of Ownership Society flimflam hastened that, not Dodd-Frank.

There are a lot of factors contributing to that trend, and DF is most definitely one of them.

Regulatory structure during the Bush years was clearly inadequate judging from the results. Getting rid of Dodd-Frank would put us right back there all over again.

Judging from the results? Correlation does not equal causation. Do you have any evidence to support the position that getting rid of DF would put us at risk for what happened at that point?

I know that the financial industry has done well enough under Dodd-Frank that we really shouldn't pay too much attention to their complaints about how horrible their cage really is & how we should just open the door so that we can all enjoy the Free! Freedom! & LIberty! of them eating us alive.

That's just meaningless political rhetoric. There's no definition of "well enough", what does that even mean?

It took 70 years to forget the lessons of 1929 but it looks like it'll only take 8 years to forget those of 2008. I believe the only way we'll learn is the hard way & Repubs are bringing it to us.

That's more political rhetoric. I'm in this industry, I'm more concerned about practical matters than political rhetoric about who is screwing something up.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I work in the financial services industry and am very familiar with Dodd-Frank. The results have been a very mixed bag at best. There is less competition and there are fewer banks, which means fewer options. Smaller organizations (credit unions, community banks) have a much harder time dealing with the complexity of the law (2300 pages) than large banks that have an army or lawyers and accountants to decipher it all. There are some areas that have been successes for DF in my mind. Large banks are better capitalized now and there are some structural changes in the industry that are positive. Overall though, overhauling it or even getting rid of it is a good idea.

I know it's a politically charged issue, but the truth is that most people have no understanding of what it actually means and what it does, much less whether it's a good thing or not.



If that's the kind of information you're getting from CNN, you need to stop reading CNN.

Came in to post this. Many of the regs I deal with leave the consumer more confused than ever. It's just more paper to sign that the consumer never reads nor understands, and if one i isn't dotted or t crossed there can be harsh penalties to the financial institution. It's regulation for the sake of regulation, and the larger institutions are the ones who benefit. They are able to pay for the technology and army of people to implement, smaller banks/credit unions can't. I'm for smart regulation, but not all that passed is smart.

 

[realibrad]

Came in to post this. Many of the regs I deal with leave the consumer more confused than ever. It's just more paper to sign that the consumer never reads nor understands, and if one i isn't dotted or t crossed there can be harsh penalties to the financial institution. It's regulation for the sake of regulation, and the larger institutions are the ones who benefit. They are able to pay for the technology and army of people to implement, smaller banks/credit unions can't. I'm for smart regulation, but not all that passed is smart.

Agreed. People want these mega corporations to get smaller to decentralize power, and at the same time passing more regulation. That creates a system where larger corporations have the advantage of hiring people to deal with regulation that smaller firms cannot.

It becomes a lot harder for corruption when the power is spread out.

 

[bshole]

You tell me what I should take from the linked articles. Did banks create a housing value bubble? They were certainly part of it, but they did not create demand, they simply supplied the credit, and the ultimate decision was on the middle class as a whole to buy a house. As said before here, we became programmed to think the American Dream was "buy a house". Trump is playing right back into that apparently, by saying the American Dream is back, not a fan of that way of thinking.

They simply supplied the credit to people that were not qualified for the amount of credit that the banks supplied. In other words, the bankers were completely INCOMPETENT in their positions. When it blew up, the bankers were rewarded for writing all those bad loans with a bailout funded by the taxpayers.

Guess what, we get to do this ride all over again. Aren't you excited? Won't this be fun?

 

[cytg111]

I think everyone can agree that stupid regulations should go!
Maybe we need to regulate these cases where the Bank *advices* a customer to take out a huge loan to invest in the Banks stock. Stuff like that. Have been known to happen.
There is lots of examples of "creative banking" that needs to be regulated IMO.

 

[superstition]

What needs to be understood is that banking is absolutely necessary in our modern world.

Well-regulated banking and "banking" are two different things. One is necessary. One is not.

 

[MongGrel]

He can't do anything to Dodd-Frank or even the CFPB without 8 Senate Dems at absolute minimum. So ain't gonna happen. He can merely tinker around the edges a bit.

Don't bet he can not get 8 Dems, they like making money also.

 

[MongGrel]

I think everyone can agree that stupid regulations should go!
Maybe we need to regulate these cases where the Bank *advices* a customer to take out a huge loan to invest in the Banks stock. Stuff like that. Have been known to happen.
There is lots of examples of "creative banking" that needs to be regulated IMO.

No, many of us do not agree.

 

[superstition]

Don't bet he can not get 8 Dems, they like making money also.

Yes, considering how Gramm-Leach-Bliley was passed with support from at least 2/3 of Dems in Congress and had Clinton's signature, no veto. That was to go along with the bill being named after three "conservative" members of Congress and only having one GOP member of Congress vote against it: Ron Paul.

 

[cytg111]

No, many of us do not agree.

What part? That stupid stuff should go or that other part?