Trump To Take Aim At Dodd-Frank, Investor Protections Rule In Executive Action

S

sear

serene
Trump To Take Aim At Dodd-Frank, Investor Protections Rule In Executive Action
NPR - ‎1 hour ago‎
President Trump is expected to sign two directives on Friday, ordering a review of financial industry regulations known as Dodd-Frank and halting implementation of a rule that requires financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients ...

I suspect, if true, this is the next economic recession in the making.

I understand! Glass-Steagle and Dodd-Frank reduced the SPECTACULAR wealth of our fat-cat bankers. I understand.

BUT !!

It's because Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton were willing to trash Glass-Steagel that resulted in the Bush administration's "worst economic recession since the Great Depression".

And so working class tax payers ended up bailing out fat-cat $millionaires.

If $Billionaire President Trump, who says he's the champion of the common man, weakens Dodd-Frank, the $millionaire $bankers will get richer; and the rest of us will be that much closer to the next bust, in the familiar boom / bust economic cycle.
 
sear said:
Trump To Take Aim At Dodd-Frank, Investor Protections Rule In Executive Action
NPR - ‎1 hour ago‎
President Trump is expected to sign two directives on Friday, ordering a review of financial industry regulations known as Dodd-Frank and halting implementation of a rule that requires financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients ...

I suspect, if true, this is the next economic recession in the making.

I understand! Glass-Steagle and Dodd-Frank reduced the SPECTACULAR wealth of our fat-cat bankers. I understand.

BUT !!

It's because Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton were willing to trash Glass-Steagel that resulted in the Bush administration's "worst economic recession since the Great Depression".

And so working class tax payers ended up bailing out fat-cat $millionaires.

If $Billionaire President Trump, who says he's the champion of the common man, weakens Dodd-Frank, the $millionaire $bankers will get richer; and the rest of us will be that much closer to the next bust, in the familiar boom / bust economic cycle.
Click to expand...

Sounds scary
 
"Citizens helped 0" Cg

By Glass-Steagel / Dodd-Frank?

"WallStFatcat enriched all" Cg

By Glass-Steagel / Dodd-Frank?

"Precision & clarity in the use of language leads to precision & clarity of thought." G. Gordon Liddy
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to disagree w/ you Cg.

I simply don't understand what your position is.

Please express yourself clearly. Do you support Trump weakening Dodd-Frank, or oppose it?
 
"Like this is a bad thing?" M6

Not for those that enjoy deep and sustained economic recessions once a decade or so.
 
Awesome. This would be somethings positive. This act has severely hampered small banks which are the biggest lenders to small businesses who create the most job growth.
 
" This act* has severely hampered small banks which are the biggest lenders to small businesses who create the most job growth. " #7

ABSOLUTELY!
Wearing a seatbelt can impose trivial movement restrictions on automobile occupants. Shall we get rid of seatbelts because of that?

The Bush administration's "sub-prime mortgage melt-down" resulted because those mortgages went "under water" or "upside down" because the ones paying the mortgage for a brief period ended up owing more than the real estate was worth.
That's most likely to happen with zero% down mortgages. Any hiccough in the real estate market can do that TEMPORARILY.
But in the long haul, real estate appreciates.

My townhouse mortgage went underwater. But I didn't move to Slovenia about it. I continued to make the mortgage payments, the real estate market soon turned around, and 15 years later when I sold, I made a profit.

c #7 makes a sharp point. If Trump does this, it'll make our $rich $bankers $richer.

But it is a statistical certitude that it will make the rest of us $poorer. Deep economic recessions benefit the very few (and already well off) at the expense of the overwhelming majority.

Apparently c #7 supports that. I never have.

* a suspected reference to either Glass-Steagel, & or Dodd-Frank
 
sear said:
" This act* has severely hampered small banks which are the biggest lenders to small businesses who create the most job growth. " #7

ABSOLUTELY!
Wearing a seatbelt can impose trivial movement restrictions on automobile occupants. Shall we get rid of seatbelts because of that?

The Bush administration's "sub-prime mortgage melt-down" resulted because those mortgages went "under water" or "upside down" because the ones paying the mortgage for a brief period ended up owing more than the real estate was worth.
That's most likely to happen with zero% down mortgages. Any hiccough in the real estate market can do that TEMPORARILY.
But in the long haul, real estate appreciates.

My townhouse mortgage went underwater. But I didn't move to Slovenia about it. I continued to make the mortgage payments, the real estate market soon turned around, and 15 years later when I sold, I made a profit.

c #7 makes a sharp point. If Trump does this, it'll make our $rich $bankers $richer.

But it is a statistical certitude that it will make the rest of us $poorer. Deep economic recessions benefit the very few (and already well off) at the expense of the overwhelming majority.

Apparently c #7 supports that. I never have.

* a suspected reference to either Glass-Steagel, & or Dodd-Frank
Click to expand...

There is an economic cycle, always has been.
While I believe the cycle can be altered, delayed or extended by individual acts I don't believe a single act is going to reverse the cycle.
What I have noticed is that the usual 7 or 8 year cycle may be more like 15 years now so we should be entering a long period of sustained growth which Trump will be falsely credited for.
 
sear said:
"Like this is a bad thing?" M6

Not for those that enjoy deep and sustained economic recessions once a decade or so.
Click to expand...

If you think Dodd/Frank will prevent a recession than you don't understand economics and moral hazard.

It was moral hazard that led banks to take on phenomenal risk during the housing boom. It wasn't Glass Steagal repeal. Watch the Big Short, it does as good a job of explaining the mess as any. But basically the underpinning of the entire financial crisis was the bankers knew at their core that the federal government would ALWAYS bail them out. That creates moral hazard. If you have zero consequences for your behavior then you will take on riskier and riskier behavior. Think about this. If I allow you to go to Vegas and tell you that everything you win you get to keep and everything you lose will be paid for by me, how would you bet? My guess is that you would bet like a wild man fast and furious with no regard to the consequences. That is essentially what happened with the financial crisis. I could explain more, but I need to know you are willing to learn and are capable of understanding complex ideas.

All Dodd/Frank did was make it harder for smaller regional and local banks to compete. Here is a dirty little secret. Big corporations love regulations. Why you may ask? Because they know that regulations will stifle the biggest threat to their business and that is smaller, agile companies that are usually more innovative and can siphon off customers. It takes a lot of work to be creative and compete. It is much easier for companies to pay off politicians to create barriers to entry "all in the name of protecting you" of course, than it is to compete in the marketplace. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but it is a fact
 
sear said:
" This act* has severely hampered small banks which are the biggest lenders to small businesses who create the most job growth. " #7

ABSOLUTELY!
Wearing a seatbelt can impose trivial movement restrictions on automobile occupants. Shall we get rid of seatbelts because of that?

The Bush administration's "sub-prime mortgage melt-down" resulted because those mortgages went "under water" or "upside down" because the ones paying the mortgage for a brief period ended up owing more than the real estate was worth.
That's most likely to happen with zero% down mortgages. Any hiccough in the real estate market can do that TEMPORARILY.
But in the long haul, real estate appreciates.

My townhouse mortgage went underwater. But I didn't move to Slovenia about it. I continued to make the mortgage payments, the real estate market soon turned around, and 15 years later when I sold, I made a profit.

c #7 makes a sharp point. If Trump does this, it'll make our $rich $bankers $richer.

But it is a statistical certitude that it will make the rest of us $poorer. Deep economic recessions benefit the very few (and already well off) at the expense of the overwhelming majority.

Apparently c #7 supports that. I never have.

* a suspected reference to either Glass-Steagel, & or Dodd-Frank
Click to expand...


Well, the melt down happened on Bush's watch, but it was far from all his fault. The sub prime meltdown got its start when the government decided it wanted to be in the housing business and created GSEs. As most things the gobblement does, it looks good on paper, but the gobblement is like a cancer eventually it metastasizes into something grotesques that eventually kills the host

I truly wish you could take off your partisan hat and look at the financial crisis through an objective lens, but I suspect that is asking far too much
 
"There is an economic cycle, always has been.
While I believe the cycle can be altered, delayed or extended by individual acts I don't believe a single act is going to reverse the cycle." R #9

Therefore by logical deduction, multiple acts could.
And if so, then why not multiple acts all combined into one law (even if it has two names, as Glass-Steagel, & Dodd-Frank did)?

"What I have noticed is that the usual 7 or 8 year cycle may be more like 15 years now so we should be entering a long period of sustained growth which Trump will be falsely credited for."

We needn't approve of Keynesian economics to acknowledge that it works.

Does it? OF COURSE !!

Should we do it? That's a separate issue.

BUT !!

Provided we don't deny that economic reality, we can see that with appropriate fiscal and monetary controls, along with Keynesian bondo to fill in the gaps, our economy can function fairly smoothly; albeit with artificial avoidance of the otherwise inevitable boom / bust economic cycles.

Can it? OF COURSE?

Should we? That's a matter of opinion.

"If you think Dodd/Frank will prevent a recession than you don't understand economics and moral hazard." TD #10

For purpose of this reply I'll presume the word "you" in this sentence should be "one".
In any case what I believe is that neither Glass-Steagel nor Dodd-Frank was perfect.

BUT !!

Either of them may have been better than nothing, IF the objective is minimizing recessions and depressions.
"It's another example of mismanagement in corporate America where we're now expected as tax payers to bail them out. They're capitalists when they make money. But they're socialists when they lose money."
Actor Tim Robins, commenting on a California commercial electric power crisis
Click to expand...
If the $rich want to get $richer, DANDY!!
But if they do stupid things that will INEVITABLY eventually result in non-viability, then I don't think those not approving and sharing in the risks should be on the hook for them.

"If you think Dodd/Frank will prevent a recession than you don't understand economics and moral hazard." TD #10

I've not read the text of the law, and I don't know enough about economics to know what the advantages and vulnerabilities of the statutory language are.

But as a pragmatist I have a fundamental belief that we as a society have the capacity to set a threshold, a range our economic excursions will not exceed; or at least a threshold below which it will not drop.

Should we? You tell me. My ignorant opinion is that it's possible to do.
Whether the price we'd pay for it would exceed the disadvantage of the booms & busts that would otherwise result? Not my call.

"Well, the melt down happened on Bush's watch, but it was far from all his fault." TD #11

I blame Clinton. Others may share the blame on Speaker Gingrich, Clinton's co-conspirator. But I blame Clinton.
 
many parts to DF.....which ones are being scrapped?.....as I heard it was the ratio of cash assets to loans that prevented banks from refinancing loans when property values dropped.....no question that contributed to foreclosures.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top