d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Trump Says That He Will Dismantle Dodd-frank
Prev1345
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 12,379
Joined: Jul 14 2008
Gold: 2,620.00
May 24 2016 08:03am
Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ 23 May 2016 22:01)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/how-hillary-clinton-would-regulate-the-too-big-to-fail-banks.html?_r=0

Here's a decent start, I reckon. Much better than Bernie's "Well uh, we'll uh, we'll break em up but good, trust me!" plan.

Here's a bit more with less detail:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/wall-street/

Etc etc.


How are these proposed reforms any better than other candidates' proposals? These proposals seem pretty vague to me. But this isn't a topic I am extremely well-versed on, so I'm not going to pretend I know all of what I'm talking about. Thanks for the links.

Quote (thundercock @ 23 May 2016 21:56)
I'm not convinced that there is a conflict of interest. Wall Street is just as ambiguous as "the blacks" or "poor people." In terms of regulation and philosophy, Wall Street is pretty diverse. One potential regulation that I'd like to see is stricter regulation on commodity trading. I fully support futures contracts as a form of risk management, but I really don't support speculation on necessary commodities (oil, wheat, corn, etc.) in general. Back in 2008, speculators drove up the price of oil to about 140 per barrel which had a pretty drastic effect on the economy. If I had it my way, you'd be forced to take delivery of the commodity.


You don't think there is a conflict of interest if you're saying you will regulate/simplify/shrink big banks but then are taking money from them? That seems like a pretty blatant conflict of interest to me, but I could be wrong.

But the point about speculation on commodities is interesting. I have a lot to learn about this subject. PaRD teaching me new stuff almost every day.

This post was edited by ThatAlex on May 24 2016 08:10am
Member
Posts: 112,095
Joined: Jul 25 2008
Gold: 40.42
May 24 2016 08:36pm
Quote (ThatAlex @ 24 May 2016 06:03)
How are these proposed reforms any better than other candidates' proposals? These proposals seem pretty vague to me. But this isn't a topic I am extremely well-versed on, so I'm not going to pretend I know all of what I'm talking about. Thanks for the links.



You don't think there is a conflict of interest if you're saying you will regulate/simplify/shrink big banks but then are taking money from them? That seems like a pretty blatant conflict of interest to me, but I could be wrong.

But the point about speculation on commodities is interesting. I have a lot to learn about this subject. PaRD teaching me new stuff almost every day.


Well, consider Bernie's plan, which is "We should totally break up the banks because then they'll be broken up!" The sum total of his plan on his own website consists of pointing out that he tried and failed to introduce legislation last year that has absolutely zero real-world plans as to what to actually do. Here's the whole bill, it's a pretty quick read:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/tbtfleg?inline=file

His plan is to have the Treasury Secretary come up with a list of banks that are "Too Big to Fail" (which would almost certainly just be a mirror of the list of 'Systematically Important Financial Insitutions' already required by Dodd-Frank) and then... well, I'll just quote the intricate plan to break up these banks:

Quote
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, but not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall break up entities included on the Too Big To Fail List, so that their failure would no longer cause a catastrophic effect on the United States or global economy without a taxpayer bailout.


Clinton's plan, on the other hand, would actually give the banks incentives to break up by instituting a 'risk tax' for banks that rely too heavily on short-term funding so as to take the risk off of the economy and taxpayer by having funds available in the treasury in case they fuck up again. She also has a lot of regulatory plans to give regulators more power to break up a bank, and wants to put significant regulations on 'shadow banking,' none of which appears in any of Bernie's plans at all.

I'm not mentioning Trump, for obvious reasons. :P
Member
Posts: 12,379
Joined: Jul 14 2008
Gold: 2,620.00
May 24 2016 08:49pm
Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ 24 May 2016 21:36)
Well, consider Bernie's plan, which is "We should totally break up the banks because then they'll be broken up!" The sum total of his plan on his own website consists of pointing out that he tried and failed to introduce legislation last year that has absolutely zero real-world plans as to what to actually do. Here's the whole bill, it's a pretty quick read:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/tbtfleg?inline=file

His plan is to have the Treasury Secretary come up with a list of banks that are "Too Big to Fail" (which would almost certainly just be a mirror of the list of 'Systematically Important Financial Insitutions' already required by Dodd-Frank) and then... well, I'll just quote the intricate plan to break up these banks:



Clinton's plan, on the other hand, would actually give the banks incentives to break up by instituting a 'risk tax' for banks that rely too heavily on short-term funding so as to take the risk off of the economy and taxpayer by having funds available in the treasury in case they fuck up again. She also has a lot of regulatory plans to give regulators more power to break up a bank, and wants to put significant regulations on 'shadow banking,' none of which appears in any of Bernie's plans at all.

I'm not mentioning Trump, for obvious reasons. :P


Thoughts on Clinton not wanting to reinstate Glass-Steagal?

Elizabeth Warren has fought hard to reinstate it, but Hillary isn't on board. I wonder why.
Member
Posts: 38,317
Joined: Jul 12 2006
Gold: 20.31
May 25 2016 02:31pm
This, among other things, is what makes all those articles about Trump "running to the left of Clinton" so stupid. Yet lazy media personalities keep writing them.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1345
Add Reply New Topic New Poll