Dodd-Frank: We (the people) need help
#1
I graduated high school. I did. I have the diploma. It's true that on the day of graduation I had about a 5th grade education. Blame? Yeah, the schools a bit, but mostly Wonky's piss poor attitude and lack of a good strong hand of direction and discipline. 
Then I started reading. I still don't know much. Folks who have followed my posts here will attest to this. So far behind, I didn't make any attempt at math or science, but in early adulthood started a reading list of things adults should know. I mismanaged the early adult years and college was not an option. (I may not have had the "stuff" to do there well anyway). I've learned some things of value, but now in advanced age fully understand all that I don't know and never will.

Sorry to bore you, but need to make a point. 

I hope to understand the basic moves and policy decisions my government makes. Be it the local school board or the federal government. So, I do my best to stay informed, following news reports and often depending of pundits to parse the texts difficult for me to understand. 

I'm lost. 

An editorial in todays (2/4) NYT suggests Dodd-Frank roll-back is a Poison Pill For Recovery.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/opini...eft-region

The WSJ says "After fivr years, Dodd-Frank is a failure. 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-five-...1437342607
(Note: The WSJ will allow us only a glimpse of the editorial if we don't subscribe) 

Both are good newspapers, albeit with different political attitudes, but still, legacy news organizations with paid investigative journalists and long traditions of providing editorial content respected around the globe. Most people in responsible positions, be it government, business, education, labor, or whatever, have these papers on their desks each morning. 

So here I am in The Valley of the Rogue, tryng to stay informed and caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. I don't want to see another "crash", and generally feel resonable government oversight of our financial institutions is a good thing. Still, I'd hate to see regulations that stifles our ability to fund growth and new ventures. 

So, I need help. 

Anyone?
Reply
#2
Well, Wonky.
In my short life, I have noticed a wave of deregulation before a major economic 'issue'. This is a sign that they are going to stage another run on the bank. It will be good times at first, lots of spending. Then the woops, will follow and another increase in the money supply. Another round of legislation. (Trump reform act) , The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Reply
#3
(02-04-2017, 12:19 PM)chuck white Wrote: Well, Wonky.
In my short life, I have noticed a wave of deregulation before a major economic 'issue'. This is a sign that they are going to stage another run on the bank. It will be good times at first, lots of spending. Then the woops, will follow and another increase in the money supply. Another round of legislation. (Trump reform act) , The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

So...
You are saying "don't bother". Citizenship is a waste of time. "They" control things so eat bread and enjoy the circus?
Reply
#4
(02-04-2017, 04:15 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 12:19 PM)chuck white Wrote: Well, Wonky.
In my short life, I have noticed a wave of deregulation before a major economic 'issue'. This is a sign that they are going to stage another run on the bank. It will be good times at first, lots of spending. Then the woops, will follow and another increase in the money supply. Another round of legislation. (Trump reform act) , The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

So...
You are saying "don't bother". Citizenship is a waste of time. "They" control things so eat bread and enjoy the circus?

Kind of the same deal you tell me about the weather Laughing Laughing
Reply
#5
(02-04-2017, 04:16 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 04:15 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 12:19 PM)chuck white Wrote: Well, Wonky.
In my short life, I have noticed a wave of deregulation before a major economic 'issue'. This is a sign that they are going to stage another run on the bank. It will be good times at first, lots of spending. Then the woops, will follow and another increase in the money supply. Another round of legislation. (Trump reform act) , The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

So...
You are saying "don't bother". Citizenship is a waste of time. "They" control things so eat bread and enjoy the circus?

Kind of the same deal you tell me about the weather Laughing Laughing

Smiling Yeah, I guess. I keep hoping we might be able to do something about political stuff, while we remain at natures whim. 
So much for hope.
Reply
#6
(02-04-2017, 06:05 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 04:16 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 04:15 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 12:19 PM)chuck white Wrote: Well, Wonky.
In my short life, I have noticed a wave of deregulation before a major economic 'issue'. This is a sign that they are going to stage another run on the bank. It will be good times at first, lots of spending. Then the woops, will follow and another increase in the money supply. Another round of legislation. (Trump reform act) , The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

So...
You are saying "don't bother". Citizenship is a waste of time. "They" control things so eat bread and enjoy the circus?

Kind of the same deal you tell me about the weather Laughing Laughing

Smiling Yeah, I guess. I keep hoping we might be able to do something about political stuff, while we remain at natures whim. 
So much for hope.

We could stand in front of the court house with signs. Unsure
Reply
#7
Dodd-Frank killed off small banks when they had to have more assets than they had, making the "to big to fail" banks even bigger with them gobbling up the smaller banks and their assets. There is about 13% less small banks than before Dodd-Frank. Basically you libs gave more to the very people you are told to hate, again, at the expense of those you are told this helped. Liberal logic is fallacy disguised as good policy.
Reply
#8
(02-04-2017, 06:42 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: Dodd-Frank killed off small banks when they had to have more assets than they had, making the "to big to fail" banks even bigger with them gobbling up the smaller banks and their assets. There is about 13% less small banks than before Dodd-Frank. Basically you libs gave more to the very people you are told to hate, again, at the expense of those you are told this helped. Liberal logic is fallacy disguised as good policy.

Better that they are taken over in a controlled manner then if they crash and burn on their own. Or don't you remember the S&L debacle? I lost access to my savings for a time on that one.
Reply
#9
(02-04-2017, 06:56 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 06:42 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: Dodd-Frank killed off small banks when they had to have more assets than they had, making the "to big to fail" banks even bigger with them gobbling up the smaller banks and their assets. There is about 13% less small banks than before Dodd-Frank. Basically you libs gave more to the very people you are told to hate, again, at the expense of those you are told this helped. Liberal logic is fallacy disguised as good policy.

Better that they are taken over in a controlled manner then if they crash and burn on their own. Or don't you remember the S&L debacle? I lost access to my savings for a time on that one.

Thank you Cuzz, proving there is no one answer for a 1,000 questions, but that sometimes one good answer solves real everyday problems. 

See, OL, cherry picked examples do not a policy make. Complex stuff, this stuff of making laws, and sometimes there can be collateral damage. What I'm trying to determine here is the "overall" impact of Dodd-Frank on the WHOLE economy and just what it is that the big banks fear oversight will do to harm them.

So, the WSJ has a view, and the NYT has a view, but they are polar opposites. Both respected news organizations. 

So, what's a poor working guy suppossed to do to find answers?

OL, you want to play in this game, give up the party line and post some facts to support your boilerplate stance spoon fed by the very special interest groups of high finance. 

This stuff is real. It counts. 

No time to jump the shark.
Reply
#10
(02-04-2017, 06:56 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 06:42 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: Dodd-Frank killed off small banks when they had to have more assets than they had, making the "to big to fail" banks even bigger with them gobbling up the smaller banks and their assets. There is about 13% less small banks than before Dodd-Frank. Basically you libs gave more to the very people you are told to hate, again, at the expense of those you are told this helped. Liberal logic is fallacy disguised as good policy.

Better that they are taken over in a controlled manner then if they crash and burn on their own. Or don't you remember the S&L debacle? I lost access to my savings for a time on that one.
They weren't taken over in a controlled manner, they were forced to sell off.
Reply
#11
(02-04-2017, 09:05 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 06:56 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 06:42 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: Dodd-Frank killed off small banks when they had to have more assets than they had, making the "to big to fail" banks even bigger with them gobbling up the smaller banks and their assets. There is about 13% less small banks than before Dodd-Frank. Basically you libs gave more to the very people you are told to hate, again, at the expense of those you are told this helped. Liberal logic is fallacy disguised as good policy.

Better that they are taken over in a controlled manner then if they crash and burn on their own. Or don't you remember the S&L debacle? I lost access to my savings for a time on that one.

Thank you Cuzz, proving there is no one answer for a 1,000 questions, but that sometimes one good answer solves real everyday problems. 

See, OL, cherry picked examples do not a policy make. Complex stuff, this stuff of making laws, and sometimes there can be collateral damage. What I'm trying to determine here is the "overall" impact of Dodd-Frank on the WHOLE economy and just what it is that the big banks fear oversight will do to harm them.

So, the WSJ has a view, and the NYT has a view, but they are polar opposites. Both respected news organizations. 

So, what's a poor working guy suppossed to do to find answers?

OL, you want to play in this game, give up the party line and post some facts to support your boilerplate stance spoon fed by the very special interest groups of high finance. 

This stuff is real. It counts. 

No time to jump the shark.
Blah blah blah
Reply
#12
(02-04-2017, 10:47 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 06:56 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 06:42 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: Dodd-Frank killed off small banks when they had to have more assets than they had, making the "to big to fail" banks even bigger with them gobbling up the smaller banks and their assets. There is about 13% less small banks than before Dodd-Frank. Basically you libs gave more to the very people you are told to hate, again, at the expense of those you are told this helped. Liberal logic is fallacy disguised as good policy.

Better that they are taken over in a controlled manner then if they crash and burn on their own. Or don't you remember the S&L debacle? I lost access to my savings for a time on that one.
They weren't taken over in a controlled manner, they were forced to sell off.

That is a pretty controlled manner.
Reply
#13
(02-05-2017, 10:20 AM)Cuzz Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 10:47 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 06:56 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 06:42 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: Dodd-Frank killed off small banks when they had to have more assets than they had, making the "to big to fail" banks even bigger with them gobbling up the smaller banks and their assets. There is about 13% less small banks than before Dodd-Frank. Basically you libs gave more to the very people you are told to hate, again, at the expense of those you are told this helped. Liberal logic is fallacy disguised as good policy.

Better that they are taken over in a controlled manner then if they crash and burn on their own. Or don't you remember the S&L debacle? I lost access to my savings for a time on that one.
They weren't taken over in a controlled manner, they were forced to sell off.

That is a pretty controlled manner.
Yes, another obozo controlled failure that enriched even more those that your handlers tell you to despise. Nothing like when a liberal loon wants to help the "little guy".
Reply
#14
(02-05-2017, 11:21 AM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(02-05-2017, 10:20 AM)Cuzz Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 10:47 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 06:56 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 06:42 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: Dodd-Frank killed off small banks when they had to have more assets than they had, making the "to big to fail" banks even bigger with them gobbling up the smaller banks and their assets. There is about 13% less small banks than before Dodd-Frank. Basically you libs gave more to the very people you are told to hate, again, at the expense of those you are told this helped. Liberal logic is fallacy disguised as good policy.

Better that they are taken over in a controlled manner then if they crash and burn on their own. Or don't you remember the S&L debacle? I lost access to my savings for a time on that one.
They weren't taken over in a controlled manner, they were forced to sell off.

That is a pretty controlled manner.
Yes, another obozo controlled failure that enriched even more those that your handlers tell you to despise. Nothing like when a liberal loon wants to help the "little guy".

The 2010 bill was to fix a problem caused by Republicans deregulating the banking industry during the 8 years of Bush, which led to the collapse of 2008. If you want to talk "Failure" look to  deregulation. it's how we repeat mistakes of the past.
Reply
#15
(02-05-2017, 11:29 AM)chuck white Wrote:
(02-05-2017, 11:21 AM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(02-05-2017, 10:20 AM)Cuzz Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 10:47 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 06:56 PM)Cuzz Wrote: Better that they are taken over in a controlled manner then if they crash and burn on their own. Or don't you remember the S&L debacle? I lost access to my savings for a time on that one.
They weren't taken over in a controlled manner, they were forced to sell off.

That is a pretty controlled manner.
Yes, another obozo controlled failure that enriched even more those that your handlers tell you to despise. Nothing like when a liberal loon wants to help the "little guy".

The 2010 bill was to fix a problem caused by Republicans deregulating the banking industry during the 8 years of Bush, which led to the collapse of 2008. If you want to talk "Failure" look to  deregulation. it's how we repeat mistakes of the past.

And it looks like trump wants to relive that whole episode because.
Reply
#16
(02-05-2017, 11:37 AM)Cuzz Wrote:
(02-05-2017, 11:29 AM)chuck white Wrote:
(02-05-2017, 11:21 AM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(02-05-2017, 10:20 AM)Cuzz Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 10:47 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: They weren't taken over in a controlled manner, they were forced to sell off.

That is a pretty controlled manner.
Yes, another obozo controlled failure that enriched even more those that your handlers tell you to despise. Nothing like when a liberal loon wants to help the "little guy".

The 2010 bill was to fix a problem caused by Republicans deregulating the banking industry during the 8 years of Bush, which led to the collapse of 2008. If you want to talk "Failure" look to  deregulation. it's how we repeat mistakes of the past.

And it looks like trump wants to relive that whole episode because.

Because his friends can't get bank loans.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/317756...dodd-frank
Reply
#17
(02-04-2017, 06:05 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 04:16 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 04:15 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 12:19 PM)chuck white Wrote: Well, Wonky.
In my short life, I have noticed a wave of deregulation before a major economic 'issue'. This is a sign that they are going to stage another run on the bank. It will be good times at first, lots of spending. Then the woops, will follow and another increase in the money supply. Another round of legislation. (Trump reform act) , The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

So...
You are saying "don't bother". Citizenship is a waste of time. "They" control things so eat bread and enjoy the circus?

Kind of the same deal you tell me about the weather Laughing Laughing

Smiling Yeah, I guess. I keep hoping we might be able to do something about political stuff, while we remain at natures whim. 
So much for hope.

 Do you seriously think"we" can "do something about political stuff" Any more than we can do something about the weather? Smiling
And actually it is possible that we can do something about the weather. Or at least to try and use less fossil fuels which is beneficial to the environment anyway.
Reply
#18
(02-05-2017, 12:25 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 06:05 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 04:16 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 04:15 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 12:19 PM)chuck white Wrote: Well, Wonky.
In my short life, I have noticed a wave of deregulation before a major economic 'issue'. This is a sign that they are going to stage another run on the bank. It will be good times at first, lots of spending. Then the woops, will follow and another increase in the money supply. Another round of legislation. (Trump reform act) , The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

So...
You are saying "don't bother". Citizenship is a waste of time. "They" control things so eat bread and enjoy the circus?

Kind of the same deal you tell me about the weather Laughing Laughing

Smiling Yeah, I guess. I keep hoping we might be able to do something about political stuff, while we remain at natures whim. 
So much for hope.

 Do you seriously think"we" can "do something about political stuff" Any more than we can do something about the weather? Smiling
And actually it is possible that we can do something about the weather. Or at least to try and use less fossil fuels which is beneficial to the environment anyway.

TVg, if you feel you can't do anything about political stuff you can't. You can't win, or lose, if you don't get in the game.   There are many ways to "get in the game". 

LA hasn't haven't done so well in eliminating drought. You can bet the Gulf, Florida, and the eastern seaboard will be smacked by hurricanes. Houston, TX, was flooded in January, Northern California more recently, and the year is but a couple of months old. 

Yes. If we are able to reduce carbon fuels it WILL be beneficial to the "environment". Won't do anything anytime soon to change weather. Maybe someday.
Reply
#19
(02-05-2017, 09:24 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-05-2017, 12:25 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 06:05 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 04:16 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 04:15 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: So...
You are saying "don't bother". Citizenship is a waste of time. "They" control things so eat bread and enjoy the circus?

Kind of the same deal you tell me about the weather

Smiling Yeah, I guess. I keep hoping we might be able to do something about political stuff, while we remain at natures whim. 
So much for hope.

 Do you seriously think"we" can "do something about political stuff" Any more than we can do something about the weather? Smiling
And actually it is possible that we can do something about the weather. Or at least to try and use less fossil fuels which is beneficial to the environment anyway.

TVg, if you feel you can't do anything about political stuff you can't. You can't win, or lose, if you don't get in the game.   There are many ways to "get in the game". 

LA hasn't haven't done so well in eliminating drought. You can bet the Gulf, Florida, and the eastern seaboard will be smacked by hurricanes. Houston, TX, was flooded in January, Northern California more recently, and the year is but a couple of months old. 

Yes. If we are able to reduce carbon fuels it WILL be beneficial to the "environment". Won't do anything anytime soon to change weather. Maybe someday.
World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data http://dailym.ai/2kdPAya via @MailOnline

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#20
(02-05-2017, 11:10 PM)capitalist pig Wrote:
(02-05-2017, 09:24 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-05-2017, 12:25 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 06:05 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-04-2017, 04:16 PM)chuck white Wrote: Kind of the same deal you tell me about the weather

Smiling Yeah, I guess. I keep hoping we might be able to do something about political stuff, while we remain at natures whim. 
So much for hope.

 Do you seriously think"we" can "do something about political stuff" Any more than we can do something about the weather? Smiling
And actually it is possible that we can do something about the weather. Or at least to try and use less fossil fuels which is beneficial to the environment anyway.

TVg, if you feel you can't do anything about political stuff you can't. You can't win, or lose, if you don't get in the game.   There are many ways to "get in the game". 

LA hasn't haven't done so well in eliminating drought. You can bet the Gulf, Florida, and the eastern seaboard will be smacked by hurricanes. Houston, TX, was flooded in January, Northern California more recently, and the year is but a couple of months old. 

Yes. If we are able to reduce carbon fuels it WILL be beneficial to the "environment". Won't do anything anytime soon to change weather. Maybe someday.
World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data http://dailym.ai/2kdPAya via @MailOnline

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
CP, for a bright guy you can be so quick to embrace that thing you want to believe, rather than the evidence suggesting a more complete and widely held view. 
But, that can be forgiven because you are allowed your opinion as much as the next guy. Debate is reasonable. Dogma: Not so much. As some wit once said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. (or words to that effect). 
So...
What you should be embarassed by is this source you want us to consider. 
The Daily Mail? Really CP? They report stuff like horses than can count, people who have been visited by little green people from outer space, carrot juice will cure cancer, and that the French don't know how to cook. 

This reporter (David Rose) is not a sceince reporter. He is just another investigative reporter who responds to any and all sensational stories that will help the Daily Mail sell more papers to the less informed people of England. 

From WIKI:

Rose has authored several pieces for The Mail on Sunday. In them he contends that temperatures have risen more slowly than computer models predicted,[22] that global warming has, for the time being, stopped,[23] and that the world may be headed into a mini ice age caused by declining solar output.[24][25]
He has also been critical of subsidies for renewable energy, arguing that they are not effective in reducing global emissions, while adding hugely to consumers' bills.[26][27] Rose has also written critically of the financial interests derived by some advocates of green energy.[28] and the burning of wood pellets imported from the US to Britain in place of coal as a supposed 'green' or zero-carbon fuel.[29]
His journalism on climate has been criticised by environmentalists for an over-reliance on unsound and unscientific sources.[30] Rose has also been criticised repeatedly by the United Kingdom's national weather service, the Met Office.[31][32][33][34] Rose defended his position in an article for The Mail on Sunday in which he stated that he accepted the scientific evidence of global warming, complaining that he had been unfairly vilified as a "climate change denier" and threatened.[35] In May 2015, he wrote an article for The Guardian on climate change, energy policy, coal and solar energy in India.[36]


The Daily Mail is to England (primarly London) what the New York Post is to NYC. He is acknowleged to be a good writer. It's also a fact he will whip up a good story about ANYTHING to sell papers. 

You must know that NASA and about every scientific organization involved in climate study believe climate change to be a genuine threat due to global warming and that man's activity is resonsible for a great share of the blame. 

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

And still, it's understood we need carbon based energy. Most of drive cars, use heat and A/C, fly on airplanes, and a thousand (or more) other things that contribute to adding carbon dioxide to our atmosphere. BUT, we understand the importance of reconizing the fact and switching to alterative fuel sources ASAP. 

Its' over CP. Time to get on board and join the crowd that has a vested interest in makeing the changes as soon as we can. 

Take heart: It will create LOTS of new businesses and profits enough to please even Capitalist Pigs.  Big Grin
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)