|
Popular Thug Drink posted:"i don't like X" isn't really an argument. we get that you don't like clinton, the odd part is that you're hesitant to really elaborate as to why. If there's one thing that I regret about today's posting it's that I never really got a chance to criticize Hillary Clinton as a politician, it's true. evilweasel posted:I am literally asking him to give those concrete examples and he's refusing to do it. I am being quite open that I do not know where she stands, I just want someone who thinks it's important to actually do a smidgen of work to support their claim and identify why she's bad so we can discuss that. Because that is actually useful to me in knowing if she's bad or not, while Maarek's uninformed opinion is not. I don't think I've mentioned it before but one time someone asked her about reinstating Glass-Steagall and she doesn't want to do that. I think that's a concrete policy position that she is very wrong on! If someone else wants to debate or discuss another I'm all for it, but feel free to keep insulting me instead!
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
Maarek posted:If there's one thing that I regret about today's posting it's that I never really got a chance to criticize Hillary Clinton as a politician, it's true. She explained that position and that she goes about the same thing in another way that is both more feasible and has more teeth. Which, I told you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Maarek posted:If there's one thing that I regret about today's posting it's that I never really got a chance to criticize Hillary Clinton as a politician, it's true. Care to elaborate why it should be reinstated?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Clinton isn't bad on Wall Street except in the case where being good on Wall Street means saying mean things about them all the time. Krugman considers her plan smarter than Bernie's plan. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html?_r=0
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
I don't think I can vote for Hillary, mainly because of her email snafu. She knew what she didn't know and thought she was playing coy about it when everyone could see through the bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Care to elaborate why it should be reinstated? Because allowing banks to make poor investment choices that are obviously going to fail while using other people's money is bad public policy? My Imaginary GF posted:I don't think I can vote for Hillary, mainly because of her email snafu. She knew what she didn't know and thought she was playing coy about it when everyone could see through the bullshit. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Maarek posted:I don't think I've mentioned it before but one time someone asked her about reinstating Glass-Steagall and she doesn't want to do that. I think that's a concrete policy position that she is very wrong on! If someone else wants to debate or discuss another I'm all for it, but feel free to keep insulting me instead! she said she would replace it with something else. i don't see how you can interpret this as a necessarily pro-wall street stance. if this is your only complaint then i'm just going to assume you're misinformed and pass on the rest of the unnecessary sniping CommieGIR posted:Because allowing banks to make poor investment choices that are obviously going to fail while using other people's money is bad public policy? reinstating an old law is not the only way to curb wall street. we could formulate and pass new laws, for example, which is what clinton proposes
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Uh-huh, sure. Yes because goodness forbid we expect nuanced discussion in the Debate & Discussion board. That's too hard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Because allowing banks to make poor investment choices that are obviously going to fail while using other people's money is bad public policy? She's not saying that they should. She's saying we should take the legislation we already have -- Dodd-Frank -- and improve on it to meet the challenges of the modern economy and financial world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:she said she would replace it with something else. i don't see how you can interpret this as a necessarily pro-wall street stance. if this is your only complaint then i'm just going to assume you're misinformed and pass on the rest of the unnecessary sniping It's a characteristically tactical omission. She appears to be using soft touch financial policy in her proposed reform, but when it comes to the most elegant solution we have she suddenly goes all vague and kicks the can down the road.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:She's not saying that they should. She's saying we should take the legislation we already have -- Dodd-Frank -- and improve on it to meet the challenges of the modern economy and financial world. And what are the benefits of improving on Dodd-Frank over Glass-Steagal?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:She's not saying that they should. She's saying we should take the legislation we already have -- Dodd-Frank -- and improve on it to meet the challenges of the modern economy and financial world. Fair enough. Gravel Gravy posted:And what are the benefits of improving on Dodd-Frank over Glass-Steagal?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:And what are the benefits of improving on Dodd-Frank over Glass-Steagal? From what I understand, the benefit is that it can get at shadow banking, which is what actually caused the crisis in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:And what are the benefits of improving on Dodd-Frank over Glass-Steagal? In her view, starting over (Glass-Steagal) is a waste of time, when we can take something we already have (Dodd-Frank) and make it better. It's also about the approach. Glass-Steagal would break banks up by size and type arbitrarily, while her plan would not. Her plan is likely to face less headwinds from financial lobbyists because it doesn't sound as scary, despite having the same practical effect (and also adding millions to the tax rolls.) And yes, it's more likely to be able to effect shadow banking than just slapping on an 80 year-old approach to regulation that doesn't recognize how changed the financial world is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Meanwhile in NH: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:And what are the benefits of improving on Dodd-Frank over Glass-Steagal? The obvious answer is that Glass-Steagal may no longer be effective to regulate Wall Street today, which is very different from Wall Street when it was repealed. The specific prohibition on mixing commercial banking and investment banking would not, to my knowledge, have fixed the financial crisis that was caused by the collapse of Lehman: I could be wrong on this point but the general issue there was far broader than just bad commercial banks. So while reinstating Glass-Steagal is probably a good step, it may also be insufficient - we may need additional curbs and other curbs may be more important to regulate systemic risk in today's world, where a bank failure is not the only risk. Part of the financial crisis was the "shadow banking" industry: financial activities like a bank, but not actually banks and not regulated like banks. And it may be more important to deal with those than to reinstate Glass-Steagal. The counter-argument is that simple, bright-line rules like Glass-Steagal are much harder to work around than more detailed regulations, because the more detail you get the more chance there is for interpretive loopholes or industry capture. In that sense I think that Glass-Steagal may be more useful than a more nuanced rule addressing a bigger problem. The obvious answer though is to do both.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Meanwhile in NH: Vote vermin supreme 2016!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
"Shadow Banking" is, for example, money-market funds. These are funds that essentially conduct banking activity - you give them your money, they invest in loans to businesses. But the thing is, they're not banks. They're not regulated by the FDIC, and they can lose money, despite everyone treating them as just as safe as banks, and so they pay slightly higher interest rates. One issue in the financial crisis was that with the siezure in the commercial paper market (business loans) that money market funds would lose money which would cause a good old-fashioned run on the bank - except these banks don't have FDIC insurance. Glass-Steagal doesn't fix things like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Sounds reasonable. Would be good to hear the retort though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:career minded people generally have a difficult time accepting that their kids might not be as intelligent or motivated as they are. these values can't always be drilled into someone fortunately, I'm from a long line of downward mobility, so my kid's going to have no pressure
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:"Shadow Banking" is, for example, money-market funds. These are funds that essentially conduct banking activity - you give them your money, they invest in loans to businesses. But the thing is, they're not banks. They're not regulated by the FDIC, and they can lose money, despite everyone treating them as just as safe as banks, and so they pay slightly higher interest rates. One issue in the financial crisis was that with the siezure in the commercial paper market (business loans) that money market funds would lose money which would cause a good old-fashioned run on the bank - except these banks don't have FDIC insurance. I think it's reasonable to say that if Glass-Steagal was not at least partially effective at reigning in investment banks then Hillary would not oppose it. If it was truly toothless in today's environment then it would be an easy pander to support it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Sounds reasonable. Would be good to hear the retort though. Dodd-Frank just ain't sexy like Glass-Steagle. Campaigns aren't about policy, Gravel Gravy, they're about winning. On policy, Bernie loses. On winning, Bernie loses, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
it should be noted that Krugman is a strange person to hold up as an authority, considering he is a strange thing these days: a purportedly liberal economist whose idealised priority is the old-fashioned "growth" of an economy or the "maximization" of GDP, rather than the collective human good (via reduction of inequality) or ecological stability Piketty's generation are interested in.evilweasel posted:"Shadow Banking" is, for example, money-market funds. These are funds that essentially conduct banking activity - you give them your money, they invest in loans to businesses. But the thing is, they're not banks. They're not regulated by the FDIC, and they can lose money, despite everyone treating them as just as safe as banks, and so they pay slightly higher interest rates. One issue in the financial crisis was that with the siezure in the commercial paper market (business loans) that money market funds would lose money which would cause a good old-fashioned run on the bank - except these banks don't have FDIC insurance. I am very strong on bright line rules, much more so than clinton suggesting she can reshape the finance industry in a way conducive to "progressive" ends with enhanced D-F rules that will supposedly have an emergent effect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:I think it's reasonable to say that if Glass-Steagal was not at least partially effective at reigning in investment banks then Hillary would not oppose it. If it was truly toothless in today's environment then it would be an easy pander to support it. haha this too her donors have already divested from anything that will take a hit post election
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Connecting the convo from last page, IRS might be going after foreign corporate incomequote:The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service on Thursday issued new rules aimed at discouraging American companies from moving their headquarters abroad in search of lower tax rates. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/business/dealbook/treasury-and-irs-propose-rules-to-curb-corporate-relocations-for-tax-reasons.html?_r=0
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Meanwhile in NH: I have that same brain on my desk!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:I think it's reasonable to say that if Glass-Steagal was not at least partially effective at reigning in investment banks then Hillary would not oppose it. If it was truly toothless in today's environment then it would be an easy pander to support it. I am not saying it's toothless and if I gave that impression I didn't mean to. What I'm saying is that it is reasonable to me that it is less effective than other solutions and/or it does not target the biggest problem. But I'm assuming it would do good. Given that, there's several reasons I can think of why you wouldn't push for reinstating Glass-Steagal. The first is if it would reign in (and implicitly, reduce profits) of firms that were separate from the firms that profit from the activity that most needs regulation. You could make the calculation that you have the political power to take on one of those groups at a time, but not both, and so you're choosing to leave one of the problem groups alone so that you can eliminate the other. That's sort of what happened with health care reform - somewhat of a divide and conquer approach where certain industries were left alone or rewarded to break up the opposition to the bill, resulting in a less effective bill than you'd like but one with a greater chance of passing. The second is the fear that your political support to take on the more serious problem will vanish if Glass-Steagal is passed because people will think that was good enough, and you no longer have the political base to get the more important regulation through. So you try to push both, the investment banks lobby congress to let Glass-Steagal through but block the other one, and you don't get the more important one through. Couldn't tell you if these are the actual motivation. It's very reasonable to suppose that Clinton is talking the talk now, but won't actually follow through - that is a time-honored tradition in a primary after all and I agree with being suspicious of her motives given her donations. It's just that that doesn't necessarily mean her policy positions are wrong - just that they won't be implemented.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:She explained that position and that she goes about the same thing in another way that is both more feasible and has more teeth. Which, I told you. I don't agree that the Volker rule has more teeth than Glass-Steagall. IIRC the man himself admitted it wouldn't have stopped the financial crisis, but I will grant you that it's much more politically feasible. I think advocating for the Volker rule instead of Glass-Steagall is a compromise position and that you shouldn't START there. Blue Footed Booby posted:Care to elaborate why it should be reinstated? Seriously? Yeah, some people overestimate the effect Glass-Steagall's repeal had on the banking system but it definitely contributed to banks bloating up to Too Big To Fail size. The firewall between your grandma's IRA and investment banking was important enough that most everyone can agree getting rid of it was a bad idea, right? Hellblazer187 posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html?_r=0 Her position on "shadow banking" is good and it would be great if at some point in one or more of the debates this was actually brought up instead of secret service code names or her drat emails. I think we should also want her to change her mind about Glass-Steagall because as The Kruge points out, getting rid of it was a mistake. If our next President makes finance reform a priority it's going to be an incredibly nasty (and probably unsuccessful) fight with a Republican congress. We should go into it asking for more than we expect to get and then be willing to accept less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
stephenfry posted:a renewed G-S could stop them buying toxic assets though, as they would probably not appear on the market in the first place. Would G-S be necessarily changed on renewal? I know of no way to legislatively define toxic assets given one of the major driving forces behind the financial crisis: that rating agencies are credulous idiots staffed with the people who couldn't get jobs at wall street being hoodwinked by the people who did (the subprime mortgage crisis was essentially created because investment banks could pay pennies for poo poo assets, con ratings agencies into saying they weren't poo poo, then sell them for good asset prices and pocket the difference). You can fix their financial incentives but you can't fix that they can be dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Couldn't tell you if these are the actual motivation. It's very reasonable to suppose that Clinton is talking the talk now, but won't actually follow through - that is a time-honored tradition in a primary after all and I agree with being suspicious of her motives given her donations. It's just that that doesn't necessarily mean her policy positions are wrong - just that they won't be implemented. I think that's being overly cynical though, because it ignores the larger context of the world she would be operating within, as Krugman put it: quote:As I said, this lopsided giving is an indication that Wall Street insiders take Democratic pledges to crack down on bankers’ excesses seriously. And it also means that a victorious Democrat wouldn’t owe much to the financial industry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Which is basically my larger point. Bernouts, and in this case Maarak and uh Angry Bug I suppose, are trying to setup a false dichotomy out of context where they pretend that Hillary, once elected, is going to invite Wall Street over for a sleep over and smores. Which isn't a reality that is going to happen in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Which is basically my larger point. Bernouts, and in this case Maarak and uh Angry Bug I suppose, are trying to setup a false dichotomy out of context where they pretend that Hillary, once elected, is going to invite Wall Street over for a sleep over and smores. Which isn't a reality that is going to happen in 2016. Nah she's going to go to their offices and tell them to "cut it out".
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Which is basically my larger point. Bernouts, and in this case Maarak and uh Angry Bug I suppose, are trying to setup a false dichotomy out of context where they pretend that Hillary, once elected, is going to invite Wall Street over for a sleep over and smores. Which isn't a reality that is going to happen in 2016. Well, a healthy distrust can only contribute to keeping her on the straight and narrow once elected. But I think it's very important to draw a distinction between distrust of the person, and the policies themselves being bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Maarek posted:If our next President FTFY I no poo poo agree with you that in a perfect world where congress was sane I would prefer Bernie over Hillary, but it's been proven time and again that congress isn't sane so for me the best thing would be someone who is only 80% of what I want but will fight for it 100% more. Bernie hasn't proven he's a fighter, Hillary has.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Well, a healthy distrust can only contribute to keeping her on the straight and narrow once elected. But I think it's very important to draw a distinction between distrust of the person, and the policies themselves being bad. That's why I am happy Bernie is running.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's why I am happy Bernie is running. Hey if he was doing that maybe he wouldn't weigh so much!! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
What is actually happening is that I am saying that Hillary Clinton shouldn't be taking shitloads of money from them, she shouldn't have said that really dumb and horrible quote from the debate, and that democratic voters should push her on her relationship with Wall Street. Hillary Clinton would be a much better president than anyone in the Republican field and she can be a much better president for her own party if she feels the pressure from the voters.A Winner is Jew posted:I no poo poo agree with you that in a perfect world where congress was sane I would prefer Bernie over Hillary, but it's been proven time and again that congress isn't sane so for me the best thing would be someone who is only 80% of what I want but will fight for it 100% more. Yes, I am fine with your position on that. What I DON'T agree with is pretending that 80% is 100%, which people in this thread are doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Maarek posted:What is actually happening is that I am saying that Hillary Clinton shouldn't be taking shitloads of money from them, she shouldn't have said that really dumb and horrible quote from the debate, and that democratic voters should push her on her relationship with Wall Street. Hillary Clinton would be a much better president than anyone in the Republican field and she can be a much better president for her own party if she feels the pressure from the voters. That was not your original point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Vermin Supreme registered for the NH primary today, as he does each cycle. This time he's running as a Democrat because, "I can beat Martin O'Malley." Vermin is kind of the best.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's why I am happy Bernie is running. That's how I've always seen his campaign as well- never really though he would win but he's definitely helping keep Hillary honest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:08
|
|
