Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumA question I need to have answered about Hillary's position, please:
I really sincerely need an answer to this question, please. I may have many more over time, and I hope I can get some answers here.
Hillary has repeatedly stated that Dodd-Frank gives the government the power to break up the Big Banks and financial industries, if 'the banks do something to deserve it'.
1. Since these institutions have already taken down the entire world economy, what exactly would it take, in Hillary's view, for those who are already agreed to be 'too big to fail', to be broken up into smaller competitive units? Clearly it takes something, in her view, other than already being recognized as being 'too big', and something WORSE than taking down the world economy.
2. Hillary phrases this to indicate that she would only act AFTER some disaster has occurred. Shouldn't the point be to insure that it does not?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)prevented the financial crisis either. Enacting the CFMA did assist in the financial crisis, Sanders voted for this act.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)My question isn't even close to a Bernie-versus-Hillary debate.
I'm just asking about Hillary. What is she thinking? I have yet to hear her say. I need to know. So does everyone else.
Treant
(1,968 posts)I'm sure you could send that question to the campaign and they'll give it consideration. But as I'm certain you'll agree, none of us would be able to tell you what any candidate actually thinks.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)In regards to your comment about 'what a candidate thinks', I am sorry if my wording was offensive, or obtuse, for you.
That wasn't my intention. My intention is to try to understand what I cannot comprehend.
Let me try to clarify.
I have worked in a number of elections, and I've always been able to explain what a candidate means when they say something... I can't make phone calls without understanding a candidates positions on things. I'm pushing for policies to be enacted with a particular candidate, and I do that with genuine facts and understanding. I don't know any other way.
The way that Hillary has chosen, and repeatedly chosen, to state her position, communicates ONLY this: 1. the current law would allow the government to take needed actions 2. I, Hillary, won't take any actions until after some other (unspecified but clearly worse than that which already happened) horrific thing happens in banking.
I would like to be able to say that Hillary would do something to PREVENT another economic collapse caused by irresponsible, greedy bankers. But she isn't saying that herself. She is saying she will stand by and watch, isn't she?
I want to hear something else. I just can't sell that position, and God knows no matter who wins the Dem nomination, I will fight like hell to insure it isn't a Reign of Republican terror.
But someone needs to give me the tools, the information, to work with. I can't work without information. So I hope someone can give me some info that comes from the candidate and makes practical, effective sense.
ahem--concerned--as you are, you should be able to locate the campaign's Web site very easily.
Response to DebJ (Reply #7)
radical noodle This message was self-deleted by its author.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)in place, it breaks up failing banks, she also has said she wants to invoke the Volcker rule.
Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)You can't prosecute someone for doing something before it became illegal.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)happening again? All I hear is "AFTER the banks do something else, I'll take action."
Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)Govt can't unilaterally move against private businesses until laws are broken. She can't and Bernie can't.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)another world economic catastrophe due to greed?
I don't accept that answer. It is a non-answer.
No we can't does NOT work for me.
I'll keep looking though..............
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)to continue asking questions.
EileenFB
(360 posts)this particular poster is asking. So so obvious.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)EileenFB
(360 posts)Nah, I didn't
George II
(67,782 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)A little commentary about Glass-Stegall and why it didn't effect the crisis here:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/14/investing/democratic-debate-what-is-glass-steagall-act/
This one is a point by point explanation from Andrew Ross Sorkin - with comments from Elizabeth Warren:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/reinstating-an-old-rule-is-not-a-cure-for-crisis/?_r=0
And this is Hillary's specifics:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-08/hillary-clinton-s-plan-to-prevent-the-next-crash
DebJ
(7,699 posts)If it has specifics, then Hillary should be talking about those specifics, and should have done so during the debates.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)I've heard her go into much more detail in town halls answering the question, but I didn't bookmark any of them specifically in terms of the financial issue, so I don't have a link to a video for you right now.
The links I gave you, will be some stuff you already know, but reading them together sort of answered a lot of things for me.
If they don't give you what you need, let me know. I'm sorting through some info today, and I may be able to find you some video.
Response to Lucinda (Reply #14)
Squinch This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cha
(297,935 posts)things like wanting President Obama primared in 2012 and continue bashing him ad nauseum.
He shouldn't be demonizing Hillary either but he is.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)I have a small problem with this statement:
"We should also strengthen and enforce the Volcker Rule so banks cant make risky and speculative trading bets with taxpayer-backed money. And if a bank suffers losses that threaten its overall financial health, senior managers should lose some or all of their bonus compensation. That will ensure that financial executives have skin in the game and a real incentive to avoid reckless risk-taking."
Actually the banks need to be stopped from making risky and speculative actions with ANYONE'S money. If allowed to do that but without a government bail out, everyone still loses their money............
This sounds good, but it also sounds very familiar, but I never heard her support this idea:
That is why we should impose a tax on the high-frequency trading that makes our markets less stable and less fair.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)to function, but that there should be serious oversight and enforcement to prevent the possibility of not only the corruption we saw in the past, but also to prevent them finding any workarounds that could put our financial stability at risk again.
Your comment about them not being able to get a bail out for problems speculating with anyones money makes a lot of sense to me, but that is an area of finance that I know very little about. I'm not sure what sort of legislation is already in place that may not be currently enforced, or what may need to be added to provide those protections.
I have a vague recollection about her commenting on things that aren't being enforced that should be...I really need to look for that video.
Squinch
(51,075 posts)I took this thread as a feeble attempt at a gotcha, but you have turned it into an informative exchange that is now a good book mark for the general election.
I want to be more like you!
Walk away
(9,494 posts)I am sure if he has a legal and doable way to protect us from another catastrophe, I'm sure Hillary and the rest of us would like to know about it.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)Anything is possible if you believe in Magic!!!
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Cha
(297,935 posts)jmowreader
(50,580 posts)They talk about percentages of tax, but if the intent of the tax is to shut down high-frequency trading it needs to be five cents per share. These guys are trying to make half-cents or single cents' profits; by taxing at five cents per share, HFT becomes too risky to attempt.
pandr32
(11,637 posts)It was the shadow banking system that is beyond any form of regulatory agency we have in place. The "short" run related to the 2008 financial crash caused a strain on the regulated banks by over-withdrawals due to the pressure of the crash.
This gives a fairly good account of how it works:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21601826-shadow-banks-helped-cause-financial-crisis-better-regulated-they-could-help-avert-next
Hillary wants to go after the shadow banking system to make sure what already occurred never happens again.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)to incur ever increasing costs of running a Systemically Important Financial Institution (Sifi). These large institutions, rather than incur the increased costs of regulation that ties up capital to insure that they don't take the economy down with it, are encourage to break up on their own, and it has already done that. Smaller institutions enjoy better profits.
Calls to break up the banks have burst back into the political conversation, thanks in part to Democratic primary candidate Bernie Sanders. But the Vermont senator isnt the only source of pressure on Wall Street. With regulatory costs from financial reforms rising and revenues faltering, major financial institutions stand to see more questions from shareholders over their size and complexity.
That possibility loomed larger this week after insurance company MetLife announced it would break into multiple parts, citing a challenging regulatory environment. MetLife is large enough to be deemed by regulators a Systemically Important Financial Institution, or Sifi, subjecting it to increased supervision.
With another Sifi buckling under post-crisis regulations, analysts are watching whether the largest banks could face similar pressures to break up in order to avoid the added costs that come with being seen as too big to fail.
You see, banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions already did what it took to convince people that they endangered the system. Dodd-Frank was created to handle the financial problems and the twenty-first century with a regulatory environment that makes leaner and small more attractive than economies of scale.
The great recession happened becasue of financial institutions that were not covered before.
Dodd-Frank provides all the power necessary to break up the banks, and includes the regulatory power to reduce the kind of risky business that led to the break up. Under the Bush administration the overall philosophy was that these institutions would regulate themselves because that made good sense. It didn't happen. Dodd-Frank provides a Clinton or Sanders administration the tools to watch the financial institutions so that they will know before they collapse that action must be taken.
To Sum Up: Dodd-Frank regulations will encourage financial institutions to break up rather than reduce profits due the the cost of regulation, and those who continue to remain large are put under increased regulation so that we see a problem before they collapse.
Of course, things change. Financial institutions will evolve because the business environment changes. We will need to develop new tools to regulate things that did not exist under current law. Breaking Up Big Banks addresses some issues with Dodd-Frank and possible future problems. The article points out that we will need new legislation. Of course, that means we would need a different Congress than the one we have now. For that, we need to GOTV and return control of Congress to Democrats. Republicans are not going to be helpful with that.
I hope this addresses your concerns.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)New York Times by Hilary Clinton, Dec. 7, 2015
*****
First, we need to further rein in major financial institutions. My plan proposes legislation that would impose a new risk fee on dozens of the biggest banks those with more than $50 billion in assets and other systemically important financial institutions to discourage the kind of hazardous behavior that could induce another crisis. I would also ensure that the federal government has and is prepared to use the authority and tools necessary to reorganize, downsize and ultimately break up any financial institution that is too large and risky to be managed effectively. No bank or financial firm should be too big to manage.
My plan would strengthen the Volcker Rule by closing the loopholes that still allow banks to make speculative gambles with taxpayer-backed deposits. And I would fight to reinstate the rules governing risky credit swaps and derivatives at taxpayer-backed banks, which were repealed during last years budget negotiations after a determined lobbying campaign by the banks.
My plan also goes beyond the biggest banks to include the whole financial sector. Some have urged the return of a Depression-era rule called Glass-Steagall, which separated traditional banking from investment banking. But many of the firms that contributed to the crash in 2008, like A.I.G. and Lehman Brothers, werent traditional banks, so Glass-Steagall wouldnt have limited their reckless behavior. Nor would restoring Glass-Steagall help contain other parts of the shadow banking sector, including certain activities of hedge funds, investment banks and other non-bank institutions. My plan would strengthen oversight of these activities, too increasing leverage and liquidity requirements for broker-dealers and imposing strict margin requirements on the kinds of short-term borrowing that also played a major role in spurring the financial crisis. We need to tackle excessive risk wherever it lurks, not just in the banks.
Second, I would appoint tough, independent regulators and ensure that both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are independently funded as other critical regulators are now so that they can do their jobs without political interference. I would seek to impose a tax on harmful high-frequency trading, which makes markets less stable and less fair. And we need to reform stock market rules to ensure equal access to information, increase transparency and minimize conflicts of interest.
Finally, executives need to be held more accountable. No one should be too big to jail. I would seek to extend the statute of limitations for major financial crimes to 10 years from five and enhance rewards for whistle-blowers. I would work to ensure that financial firms admit wrongdoing as part of settlements in instances of egregious misconduct, and increase transparency about the terms of settlement and the fines actually paid to the government. Fines should be more than just the cost of doing business to these companies they should be an effective disincentive for illegal behavior.
And it shouldnt just be shareholders and taxpayers who feel the pain when banks make bad decisions; executives should have skin in the game. When a firm pays a fine, I would make sure that the penalty cuts into executives bonuses, too. And I would fight to close the carried interest loophole that gives some fund managers billions of dollars in tax breaks: They should be taxed like every other citizen.
*****
Read it at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/opinion/hillary-clinton-how-id-rein-in-wall-street.html?_r=0
lamp_shade
(14,850 posts)Squinch
(51,075 posts)Bernie's plan, which in sum total is: BREAK UP THE BANKS!@! (You have to bug your eyes and hold up your finger while interrupting someone else when you say that.)
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)that word always gives them away in my opinion!!
Squinch
(51,075 posts)Fla Dem
(23,840 posts)jmowreader
(50,580 posts)US banks are all stress tested, and you can read about that at http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bank-stress-test.asp and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bank_stress_tests.
Here's the sincere answer to your question: In the United States, we punish people and institutions for things they did actually do after the law was passed. We don't punish them for things they did before the law was passed, or things they might do. (Otherwise you get into a Minority Report-style precrime scenario.) If Bernie decided to break up the big banks under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 for crashing the economy in 2007, or because they might crash the economy in 2018, the Supreme Court would have no choice but to slap him down hard - perhaps to the extent of dismantling Dodd-Frank.
Simply stated, Bernie's plan to break up big banks just in case is about as unconstitutional as anything coming out of the GOP.