Finance Lobby Update
I've sometimes wondered what it would take to get a guy like Dana Milbank to wipe the smirk off his face and get genuinely outraged. Now I know: listening in on a call with the finance lobby.
On Tuesday, the American Financial Services Association even held a conference call with reporters to update them on its efforts — successful so far — to torpedo plans for a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which would protect people from the sort of lending abuses that led to last year's implosion.
...."It looks more and more like Senate banking won't take it up until January or February, and with next year being an election year, that does raise the concern level," [Bill] Hempler reported with satisfaction. "This could delay the overall effort." Or, with a bit of luck, kill it outright.
....In Tuesday's conference call, AFSA's executives offered the many familiar reasons why government regulations are bad....But the argument most likely to prevail for the financial firms on Capitol Hill was offered by Chris Stinebert, the trade group's chief. "Especially now, when we're in a very, very sensitive time, when the capital markets are just starting to recover," he said, "introducing a high level of uncertainty in the marketplace could be very detrimental."
Or, to put it another way: Don't regulate us now because the economy is still suffering from the mess we made because we weren't regulated the last time. Chutzpah, it appears, is recession-proof.
In other finance lobby news, Simon Johnson reads and explains a new research report from Morgan Stanley insisting that increased capital requirements for large banks would be a terrible thing for the economy:
The bottom line, translated: let us adjust our balance sheets (downwards to some degree) and continue with our existing business models (including unconstrained bonuses), and we will bring you back to growth eventually. If you mess with us, unemployment will stay high for a long time. And any future crises that may befall us are just a cost of doing business, and making us whole is just what you have to do.
All this lobbying and more1 will be crashing down on the United States Congress soon, insisting that any but the most anodyne new regulations will wipe out the economy, wreck the banking system, and turn the country over to the Chinese with barely a whimper. They will be eagerly assisted by Fox News, the entire Republican Party,2 the Wall Street Journal, the business community, and — in a tremendous irony — tea partiers of all stripes, who will somehow be gulled into believing that good, hardworking bankers are under attack from the same malign forces that are trying to kill grandma. Raise your hand if you think a majority of our members of Congress have the stones to stand up to this.
1And by more, yes, I mean tidal waves of campaign cash.
2Plus, as several commenters have mentioned, a dispiritingly large portion of the Democratic Party.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
"All this and more1 will be
"All this and more1 will be crashing down on the United States Congress soon, insisting that any but the most anodyne new regulations will wipe out the economy, wreck the banking system, and turn the country over to the Chinese with barely a whimper. They will be eagerly assisted by Fox News, the entire Republican Party, the Wall Street Journal, the business community, and — in a tremendous irony — tea partiers of all stripes, who will somehow be gulled into believing that good, hardworking bankers are under attack from the same malign forces that are trying to kill grandma. Raise your hand if you think a majority of our members of Congress have the stones to stand up to this."
Hmm, most of these recommendations sounds like what we could have read from YOU about a year ago. And eagerly assisted by Fox News, ... blah blah blah?
How about eagerly assisted by Geithner, Summers, Obama, and 99% of our Democratic leaders?
Don't you mean led by Chuck
Don't you mean led by Chuck Schumer, don't you?
You're such a tool of the Progressives Kevin.
Super-majority
Kevin said: Raise your hand if you think a majority of our members of Congress have the stones to stand up to this.
Remember, Kevin, it doesn't take a majority. It takes a super-majority.
Anonymous is Right
Obama and his picks Geithner and Summers are no better, not to mention the likes of Barney Franks and most other Dems in congress. Let's not pretend that this is a D vs. R or left vs. right issue.
Look at the history too. Rubin and Summers were Clinton appointees, and Greenspan was a Clinton re-appointee. Rubin, Summers and Greenspan were the troika that squashed derivatives regulation. Clinton was also the one who pushed hard for premature PNTR and WTO membership for China. Obama is just trying for a Clinton redux.
left vs. right?
If we had an actual political left in this country, then it might be a left vs. right issue.
But I agree with your main point.
While I agree we don't have
While I agree we don't have an actual political left in this country, I don't think you really need one to take on this issue. It's more honest vs. corrupt or real capitalism vs. crony capitalism. Or (to give some folks the benefit of the doubt) sober vs. drank-the-Kool-Aid.
It's an important distinction because many people aren't that far left. I know I'm not (although anyone to the left of the John Birch society is portrayed as a commie, or at least "not serious").
An honest right wing or libertarian would also take this on, although their Andrew Mellonesque "liquidate, liquidate, liquidate" might be even worse.
Should I really care?
The bankers' conduct was and remains sleazy, but they were just the pimps. Everyone with money and property loved the real estate bubble, and Wall Street obliged by supplying clever new forms of bubbliciousness.
But the self-swindle was much more broadly based across the upper and upper middle classes. And everyone sort of knows it, but it is a whole lot more fun to blame Wall St.
Gotta love these "lack of
Gotta love these "lack of moral rectitude" arguments. They're vague, diffuse and moralistic so as to avoid any possible remedy other than staring at one's navel and muttering "forgive us for we have sinned".
al-Fubar: "Everyone with money and property loved the real estate bubble".
Really? Don't generalize much, do you? You don't even hint at how much "money and property" one needs to qualify, but I know that I didn't love it and (even before the crash) didn't benefit from it. Obviously banks, sellers, developers and real estate agents benefited from it. Buyers and people who work in industries with actual international competition got screwed by it (again, even before the crash). Obviously post-crash everyone is screwed, except for many of the financial perpetrators (it's hard to loose money when Uncle Sam's got your back).
al-Fubar: "it is a whole lot more fun to blame Wall St."
Ok, let's not. Sociopaths are easy to come by and will always be with us. Ultimately the blame lies with poor regulation. Tell me again who's in charge of that?
Should I really care?
The bankers' conduct was and remains sleazy, but they were just the pimps. Everyone with money and property loved the real estate bubble, and Wall Street obliged by supplying clever new forms of bubbliciousness.
But the self-swindle was much more broadly based across the upper and upper middle classes. And everyone sort of knows it, but it is a whole lot more fun to blame Wall St.
tea partiers {{citation}}
What makes you think the tea partiers will be a party to this? In their earliest days, this was precisely the crap they were against.
Of course, it's not important to get history correct, it's important to get left talking points history correct.
Thanks for the reply. But
Thanks for the reply. But Kevin, it's only irony, if the tea partiers do mass against banking regulations. So what makes you think they will do so?
Because Glenn Beck, Rush
Because Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin will tell them that banking regulations will lead to socialism and death panels. Intellectual seriousness, curiosity, and consistency are not the teabaggers' strong suits.
You and Kevin could be right.
You and Kevin could be right.
Be thankful you can read well.
Poor reading skills seem to be a prerequisite for becoming a ditto headed right wing thinker. Maybe poor listening and logic skills, too. Knowing this, the right wing commissars have seemingly purposefully destroyed public education in America. TV and MSM are no substitute. Making America weaker makes the right wing stronger.
But There Will be a Maverick
Limbaugh was supporting the big bonuses back in March 2009 I believe -- I heard him myself (only time I ever listened to him for more than 30 seconds).
Anyway, this is the perfect opportunity for some enterprising young politician to hit it big as a forthright opponent of Big Finance. I don't know from which party this maverick will appear, but he/she will be looking mighty good if things go as expected; i.e. if Big Finance blocks any reforms and we have another collapse.
It's probably too much to hope that Barack Obama would be the one, but I do so hope...
Don't forget: if the banks
Don't forget: if the banks fail, there's nothing keeping Obama from confiscating your guns. The only thing standing in the way of ATF agents having their way with your wife and daughters is Goldman-Sachs bonuses. Don't you patriots understand that?
"And by more, yes, I mean tidal waves of campaign cash"
The really ironic thing is that the amount of campaign cash is really minuscule compared to the resulting profits. The LA Times reported today that Big Pharma 2008 profits were $40.5 billion (14% of sales), and total campaign contributions were $24.5 *million*. That's about 1/20th of a percent of profits: a trifle, a mere ripple, not a tsunami. What I want to know is: Why do these congressmen sell themselves so cheaply?
Fox News and the Wall Street Journal
Hmm. I wonder what they have in common?
And the Tea Party crowd wouldn't be what it is without Fox.
That's 3 out of the 5 that Kevin lists.
Face it, so far in the 21st century, a media mogul is a decisive force in American politics, to our great disadvantage.
Following the money trail
Quiddity who can't l... >"...a media mogul is a decisive force in American politics, to our great disadvantage."
One financed by China it appears from the evidence. Mooneys are probably also involved.
The cultivated ignorance is soooo deep and wide.
"The wind blows over the surface of the lake. In this way, the effects of the invisible are made visible." - I Ching
re: tidal waves of campaign
re: tidal waves of campaign cash
Last weekend I saw idiots at Cato on CSPAN seriously stating that what we really need is fewer limits on campaign contribs.
/head on desk
Le update
Dans ce pay-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un finanicier pour encourager les autres.
An idea... Legislation
An idea... Legislation prohibiting any elected lawmaker from voting on any measure that would benefit a prior campaign contributor... cash or like kind... Or to accept a contribution at from anyone benefitting from a lawmakers previous vote.
You're letting the teabaggers off too easy
They will be eagerly assisted by Fox News, the entire Republican Party, the Wall Street Journal, the business community, and — in a tremendous irony — tea partiers of all stripes, who will somehow be gulled into believing that good, hardworking bankers are under attack from the same malign forces that are trying to kill grandma.
You seem to be saying that the tea partiers are somehow being deceived into believing that these financial regulations are bad for the economy. I think that's letting them off too easy. There's no deception involved - these people honestly believe that the only way to "save" our nation is to have complete lassiez-faire capitalism in all areas of the economy.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
On Tuesday, the American Financial Services Association even held a conference call with reporters to update them on its efforts — successful so far — to torpedo plans for a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which would protect people from the sort of lending abuses that led to last year's implosion.


