In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On April 16 2016 21:05 oneofthem wrote: look sandernistas are fundamentally suspicious of the rich and the powerful. valid concerns. but they also overly rely on this and the best way i describe it is that there is a lot of simple class hatred directed not only at clinton but also the rich.
It's more of a disagreement. They think the US is no longer a democracy but an oligarchy. You don't seem to agree. I'd say there is a difference between hating the rich because they're rich and hating the rich because they are perceived to press their advantage too much.
It's easier to argue against an effigy of Bernie supporters than it is the one right in front of them. They know what the problems are, they are intentionally turning a blind eye to it.
People are not generically mad, they are mad for specific reasons, but it's easier to dismiss those issues as irrational hate than it is to realize that Hillary is part of the problem. She is reinforcing everything about fundraising in the Democratic party that Obama was trying to step away from. She is basically telling Obama and the Democratic party that dreaming of day where politicians aren't dependent on big money donors is just that, a dream. Meanwhile, we see Bernie crushing her fundraising numbers without superPAC's to shuffle money around and take huge donations, but with massive grassroots support. He's gotten donations from over 2 million people, the overwhelming majority of which aren't maxed out. Hillary has 1 million donors and
Clinton last year raised 58 percent of the $110.4 million she has amassed for the primary campaign from donors who have given maximum $2,700 donations, according to an analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute.
On April 17 2016 07:04 oneofthem wrote: it would then be easy to come up wiht specific instances of corrupt actions
Well, this is the textbook example.
People talk so much about Hillary Clinton 'knowing' what to do regarding Wall Street. Can you provide sources for her knowing how to break up the big banks, etc. that show a more sophisticated understanding than Sanders has, for example, in his NYDN interview?
Hillary Clinton supports "giving regulators more authority to force overly complex or risky firms to reorganize, downsize, or break apart". Is there any mention of how she would do this?
Hillary Clinton supports "giving regulators more authority to force overly complex or risky firms to reorganize, downsize, or break apart". Is there any mention of how she would do this?
Sanders wants to break up these banks period, RHC offers authorities more power to do this if deemed neccesary.
It doesn't matter if there are thousands of tiny banks or three big ones so long as the incentives for all of them are the same. The S&L crisis was caused by regional banks, in the 2008 crash the bigger firms and the ones that had investment + commercial banking in one (one of the Glass-Steagal sycophants' no-nos) weathered the storm relatively better than smaller banks.
Financial crises occur because of bad incentives for financial institutions. One of the major, bad, incentives was that banks were able to leverage more heavily against mortgages (and by extension mortgage backed securities). This remains unchanged today because politicians still have a boner for home ownership. Also there is an equally bad situation with municipal and sovereign debt, which regulators don't require banks to hold collateral against, even Greek, Illinois, or Puerto Rican debt is treated by them as basically cash. And once again, politicians have a boner for deficit spending so that situation is not likely to change.
Hillary Clinton supports "giving regulators more authority to force overly complex or risky firms to reorganize, downsize, or break apart". Is there any mention of how she would do this?
Sanders wants to break up these banks period, RHC offers authorities more power to do this if deemed neccesary.
Thats already a major difference.
The quote from the NYDN interview that everyone hates is "how you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail". Later he says "and then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination."
How does this come across as "breaking up these banks period"? It sounds to me that he believes that they're too big to fail as is, because they're bigger than the banks in 2008 which were already too big to fail, but he still believes that some very knowledgeable people (especially the secretary of treasury) should make that determination.
While most of the attention is paid to her wall st donors, its not just them that are problematic. Next they'll be saying how her time in Arkansas taught her about farming so we should ignore her big ag donors, or how being married to Bill is how we can trust her to work against her big pharma donors.
We all know money has a corrupting influence people arguing hillary is beyond that influence are the ones treating their candidate as superhuman.
On April 17 2016 07:36 cLutZ wrote: It doesn't matter if there are thousands of tiny banks or three big ones so long as the incentives for all of them are the same. The S&L crisis was caused by regional banks, in the 2008 crash the bigger firms and the ones that had investment + commercial banking in one (one of the Glass-Steagal sycophants' no-nos) weathered the storm relatively better than smaller banks.
Financial crises occur because of bad incentives for financial institutions. One of the major, bad, incentives was that banks were able to leverage more heavily against mortgages (and by extension mortgage backed securities). This remains unchanged today because politicians still have a boner for home ownership. Also there is an equally bad situation with municipal and sovereign debt, which regulators don't require banks to hold collateral against, even Greek, Illinois, or Puerto Rican debt is treated by them as basically cash. And once again, politicians have a boner for deficit spending so that situation is not likely to change.
yes risk weighting is ridiculous sometimes. That's the consequence of having one set of rules for all banks and situations. It'll always lead to weird stuff.
The way banking regulation works at the moment is distorting the market as hell. In fact they shouldn't even be as big in providing mortgages as they are. Life insurers / pension funds providing mortgages makes a lot more sense . The Peterson Intitute of International Economics has a nice paper about how regulation caused banks to get into mortgages. Can't link it since I'm on my phone but it's a good read
On April 17 2016 08:18 oneofthem wrote: look at sanders 'bill' he tried THREE times wanting immediate breakup of all sifi institutions with freeze of fed repo operations.
if you are going to defend your candidate at least know the guy's history
I didn't even really ask about Sanders-Hillary. I asked about Hillary and what she would do about the big banks, and the only response I got was "YEAH WELL BERNIE SUCKS MORE".
On April 17 2016 08:53 Soularion wrote: If you're giving me info, give me a source beyond yourself, please. Then it can be an actual discussion, albeit a discussion of something irrelevant.
Not saying if the statement is true or not, but "YEAH WELL BERNIE SUCKS MORE" is a perfectly valid argument when it's choosing one of them
On April 17 2016 07:27 Velr wrote: Breaking up companies so big that their, purely profit driven, fuckups could treaten whole countries can't be a bad thing.
You can argue how but if you argue anything more your just waiting for m.a.d.
There are legit reasons why big bank can be beneficial. It gives them the leverage to compete internationally. Unless US can also break up Deutsche bank, HSBC, or any of the big bank in China (all which are bigger than any US bank), it is a problem.
On April 17 2016 09:24 ragz_gt wrote: Not saying if the statement is true or not, but "YEAH WELL BERNIE SUCKS MORE" is a perfectly valid argument when it's choosing one of them
On April 17 2016 07:27 Velr wrote: Breaking up companies so big that their, purely profit driven, fuckups could treaten whole countries can't be a bad thing.
You can argue how but if you argue anything more your just waiting for m.a.d.
There are legit reasons why big bank can be beneficial. It gives them the leverage to compete internationally. Unless US can also break up Deutsche bank, HSBC, or any of the big bank in China (all which are bigger than any US bank), it is a problem.
This argument doesn't stand on its own. If someone tells you that banks that are too big to fail cause a danger to society, you can't just say that it allows them to be competitive. That's like saying that doping products are fine because it allows athletes to be competitive. You recognize that the argument in this analogy is fallacious because it's acknowledged that doping is a problem in sports. In the same way, unless you demonstrate that these banks aren't too big to fail (or that being too big to fail isn't a problem), in other words unless you address the argument that is made, then being competitive doesn't hold weight as an argument.
EPT
