2694

Bill Clinton refutes that his repealing Glass-Steagall, signing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, and rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with causing the eventual bubble and Panic of 2008. Most financial experts disagree with President Clinton.

I would expect Trump deregulation of financial services will likewise give us a boom for several years before the banks get greedy and start lending in an irresponsible manner to financially stupid borrowers who won’t understand what’s going on until it collapses and they’re called victims again.

2695

You want to know what the banks will do without regulation? Let’s have a look at what they were doing under it… shall I direct you to Well Fargo now or later? Greenspan admitted he did’t think institutions would act again their interest… the problem is these companies are run by CEO’s who have short-term goals and golden parachutes. They don’t care of the company is still there in ten or twenty years.

Aka, they will act against their own long term interest to hit short-term goals… immediately.

2696

I agree. I thought that’s what I said. :-)

2697

You said it would give us a boom for several years. I don’t agree with that. It will hit the fan before, “several years”. You also said before the banks get greedy… hint, they’re already greedy.

2698

That’s fine, but it’s what we experienced the last time it happened. The bubble will expand until it bursts.[quote=“Nesrie, post:2697, topic:126890”]
You also said before the banks get greedy… hint, they’re already greedy.
[/quote]I find we are always at odds over meaningless things. They’ve been shown to act irresponsibly in the past. I’m implying a delay before they show that irresponsibility (as before – it’s takes them a little while to ramp up their irresponsibility – but it really doesn’t matter anyway). Most for profit organizations want to make profit – only when their behavior is destructive to society would I assign a morality to “for profit”. Otherwise, greed is not evil. So, not sure if that was your point, but that’s mine.

2699

I am using the word greedy because you did, and I didn’t say greed or for profit is bad. You’re implying that if regulations dropped we’d have several “good” years before some bubble popped. I am saying i don’t think it will take that long; I don’t agree with you. I think they will self-destruct a lot faster than than that. That’s it.

I also consider fraud to be more than for profit. We’ve seen behavior from banks, under harsher regulation act irresponsibly, today.j.

2700

Seriously, you’re fighting over bullshit when he essentially ages with your position.

2701

Timex, I know you have this weird thing about defending Royal and charging at me when you don’t care for my opinion, but listen up.

I DON’t believe there would be a boom. That’s a valid disagreement. That’s the start of his position.

2702

Whatever, he agrees with the fundamental point that it’s a fundamentally bad policy.
That’s the meaningful point.

2703

Just my 2 U.S. cents but Nesrie can get very abrasive on minor points, I get the feeling a few people here serve as stand-ins for Trump supporters she may know that actually do deserve invective.

I think investment banks have had two major effects on the economy since 1980:
1 - Absorbing larger and larger amounts of corporate profits while providing very questionable benefits to the real economy, also leading to rapidly rising inequality.
2 - Destabilising the well-being of the human and animal species.

Even under current regulation the great financial crisis was only a speed bump for 1 and 2 will probably happen again sometime in the future. Deregulating will make 1 go faster straight away while leading to 2 at a closer date than otherwise.

It’s a very hard question to answer as investment bankers themselves are almost always blind to these things (tends to happen when money is the sole purpose of living) and economists are too busy trying to figure out the consequences of what bankers were doing five years ago let alone right now, so they will always be late to the prediction party.

2704

Pretty much. Clinton is full of shit.

2705

well, since you insist

2706

I did my part, calling Toomey, trying him that i was a registered Republican, and that he should vote against DeVos. Let’s see if he grows a spine, because she is hilariously unqualified to the degree that is difficult to deny.

2707

50 Senators tomorrow are going to defecate whatever is remaining of their integrity out of their collective assholes and vote to confirm one of the most unqualified Cabinet members to ever be nominated. Maybe even THE most unqualified. What a disgrace.

2708

All good points, except I partially disagree with the last line. A whole mess of people had major reservations about Trump, but cared more about sticking it to liberals than they cared about having a functioning government. I’m related to several of them, sadly.

2709

Rob Portman has said that he’s voting for her, despite the extreme volume of calls he’s received asking him not to. Coincidentally Portman’s also received tens of thousands of dollars of donations from DeVos and her family.

2710

Well, allowing people to borrow money irresponsibly stimulates the economy in a variety of ways, buying new appliances, furniture, and all sorts of things from paint to tools, etc. it means more work for movers, and all manner of contractors that do repairs, and the people that staff all those businesses were stuff is being bought from, and more things than I could begin to enumerate. More work, more people making money, more people going out to eat, and on and on and on.

None of that has anything to do with the banks directly except that they are lending money. So, yeah, I think it makes sense that if money is being lent more freely that economic stimulus follows, provided that it persists for an extended period and is widespread enough. Why do you disagree?

2711

Senator Tim Scott from north Carolina:" This vote isn’t about Betsy DeVos."

Pretty sure it is, dude.

2712

Holy shit, right now, Tim Scott is literally making the argument for DeVos on the basis that secretary of education isn’t that powerful and she can’t really do much.

Seriously, he’s saying, “sure, she’s totally unqualified, but it didn’t matter, cause she can’t do anything anyway.”

That is fucking happening on the floor of the Senate right now.

2713

Then I guess we should just eliminate the position all together. I mean, if it’s so fettered and all. Maybe we could create a new, more powerful position… like Federal Headmaster or something.