Monday, March 05, 2018

What 2008 Crash? Senate May Weaken Banking Rules

The Senate is preparing to scale back the sweeping banking regulations passed after the 2008 financial crisis, with more than a dozen Democrats ready to give Republicans the votes they need to weaken one of President Barack Obama's largest legislative achievements. Congress's appetite for pulling back bank regulations shows the renewed clout of the financial sector in Washington, not just in the GOP but also among Democrats. Eight years after nearly every Senate Democrat backed a sweeping set of new rules for financial firms large and small, the party is now split, with moderates, several of them facing tough midterm election contests, working with the opposing party.


The core of the new bill exempts about two dozen financial companies with assets between $50 billion and $250 billion from the highest levels of scrutiny by the Federal Reserve, the nation's central bank. Supporters argue that the legislation would bring much-needed relief to midsize and regional banks that were treated like their much larger counterparts under the 2010 legislation known as Dodd-Frank. Opponents say it would weaken the oversight needed to stave off the type of dangerous lending and investing that brought the U.S. economy to its knees.

The Senate is slated to take an initial procedural vote this week to move the measure forward, and if it eventually becomes law, it would be the most substantial weakening of Dodd-Frank since it was passed.


This is what Mnuchin was mentioning easing restrictions for while being booed. Should anyone be amazed at how so many Democrat representatives agree with Mnuchin and not the %99 voters?

I don't use banks and encourage everyone to leave them for credit unions. They are probably still planning to crash the dollar early in another mass distribution debt, having replaced it with something crypto, undoubtedly.

#1 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-03-05 07:25 AM


Better hope we don't end up with a cryptocurrency as a reserve currency.

"Bitcoin uses about 32 terawatts of energy every year, enough to power about three million U.S. households, according to the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index published by Digiconomist, a website focused on digital currencies.

By comparison, processing the billions of Visa (V) transactions that take place each year consumes the same amount of power as just 50,000 American homes, according to Digiconomist."

That was December the numbers for Feb are up to 50TWh enough to power almost 5 million US households. It has been pretty steadily increasing for the past 6 months with no signs of slowing. Current trends put energy consumption of BitCoin equal to the energy consumption of the US by mid 2019.

Current estimates of the carbon footprint of BitCoin are about 1/3 of total flights to and from Britain per year.

#2 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-03-05 08:01 AM

#2 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-03-05 08:01 AM

You might find this information nifty: The Bitcoin Psyop.

#3 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-03-05 08:24 AM

Of course they are.

And they'll all act super serious when another crash occurs, despite being part of the turd tornado that created it.

#4 | Posted by jpw at 2018-03-05 09:32 AM


Long but worth it RLR. I actually know one of the developers of Bitcoin and a lot of the issues that are raised were issues of concern during development. The guys that did it were for the most part very libertarian minded and were in fact trying to achieve the dream of truly decentralized banking.

I failed to get in back then because while I saw the advantages I also saw some of the risks. For one thing with no third party clearing house we have no price stability. The value is simply whatever value the collective belief of the community places on it. That is both a strength and weakness. It's why we see 10k one day and 2k the next. Until that stability is addressed it has no hope as a viable currency.

The issue of energy requirements also needs to be addressed. As the block chain gets longer each transaction will take more power the more it's used the more power etc. it is something my discussions back in 2008 never touched on and I don't know that the issue of scalability was every really thought of. It was something cool they could do, there was a demand but I don't think they ever thought it would grow to what it has become so they never really considered what would be needed. Either that or back in the heady days of 2007 when computers were doubling processing power ever year they just assumed processors would keep up with demands.

I don't know what the future holds in terms of cryptocurrency but it won't be bitcoin as it exists now. The simple fact that at current rates by 2020 it will consume as much energy as the entire world uses today means it can't. Not sure if a central bank will grab control or if a newer more efficient decentralized cryptocurrency will arise. I hope for the latter but assume the former.

#5 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-03-05 10:17 AM

75 year of banking stability unraveled when Clinton agreed to the Republican demand to repeal Glass-Steagal. This opened the door to risk taking with other people's money and fraud which led directly to the 2008 crisis. Dodd-Frank was a compromise effort to reregulate which is again under attack. Bankers want an enhanced license to steal even though all those with access to the Fed money machine already have that license. No Government [project, local State or Federal should ever have to ask the private sector for money. Its a big waste of money to be organized this way. A royal scam created by a banking cult which controls modern civilization. Politics is actually secondary

#6 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-03-05 10:23 AM

"75 year of banking stability unraveled when Clinton agreed to the Republican demand to repeal Glass-Steagal."

Glass-Steagal was effectively no longer being enforced at that point. But making the repeal "official" probably did accelerate things even more. Clinton definitely deserves to get dinged for that one, as well as not enforcing the law before it was repealed.

#7 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-03-05 11:18 AM

- Glass-Steagal was effectively no longer being enforced at that point.

And it was not up to regulating the then more modern transactions and products.... which have mostly changed again since Bush's Great Recession.

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2018-03-05 11:25 AM

Hey Hey, remember when it was Hillary who was in the pocket of Wall Street?


#9 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-03-05 11:58 AM

Why did Hillary refuse to support the reinstatement of Glass-Steagal, like O'Malley and Sanders did?

The with Hillary was she had most of Bill's bad qualities and none of his good ones.

#10 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-03-05 12:28 PM

The *problem

(damn editing)

#11 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-03-05 12:28 PM

Why did Hillary refuse to support the reinstatement of Glass-Steagal, like O'Malley and Sanders did?


Because the 2008 crisis had more to do with traditional investment firms than banks offering both commercial and investment services so Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented it.

That's why new protections were put in place that were more targeted to preventing it.

Man...there goes that talking point, huh?

#12 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-03-05 01:19 PM



And if one wasn't expecting the new rules to go away as soon as Republicans were in charge, one hasn't been paying attention.

A nice deep Recession with an accompanying war is SOP for Republican Starve the Beast strategery these days. And the next Dem Pres will be there to clean up the mess, again, and take the flak for how long that takes and how painful it is, again... just as planned.

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2018-03-05 01:35 PM


Yes. Robert Rubin permitted the merger of Travelers and Citicorp in violation of Glass-Steagal before it was repealed. He then left Treasury to become CEO of Citicorp which ultimately became the Fed's biggest problem in 2008. There may be other examples which I'm not aware of.


yes, you're correct, but when repeal permitted the merger of commercial and investment banks, the door was opened to stick the public with what should have been private losses incurred by crooked investment Banks. So that's what the Fed did, secretly, until Paul-Sanders forced disclosures by audit. Greenspan deserves more blame than Clinton for several reasons, including his attack on Brooksley Born. Ms Born resigned after predicting a financial crisis, if Greenspan's policies were implemented. Deregulation did not consist of a single thing. The Fed's failure to enforce the regulations which still remained in place was a primary cause.

#14 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-03-05 02:04 PM

"Paul Krugman, contended that the repealing of the act "was indeed a mistake"; however, it was not the cause of the financial crisis.[24]"

"Other commentators believed that these banking changes had no effect, and the financial crisis would have happened the same way if the regulations had still been in force.[25]

Lawrence J. White, for instance, noted that "it was not [commercial banks'] investment banking activities, such as underwriting and dealing in securities, that did them in".[26]

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2018-03-05 02:19 PM

You know that when you are relying on a quote from Paul Krugman out of Wikipedia you have won the argument!


#16 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-03-05 02:26 PM


RoC, the perfect reverse barometer.

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2018-03-05 02:30 PM


That's some mighty and some feeble white washing going on. Glass-Steagal separated commercial banks and investment banks. Commercial Banks accept public deposits, are required to maintain strict capital and lending requirements and insured under the FDIC system. Investment Banks use their own money and are not bound by the same regulations as commercial banks, do not take public deposits, are not FDIC insured and are free to take risks with their own money.

WAMU and Countrywide engaged in mortgage fraud. Investment Banks engaged in securities fraud,(ie peddling toxic assets as AAA Bonds). They never paid a penny into the FDIC insurance system created during the great depression, yet were suddenly declared to be under the same FDIC system as commercial banks when the toxic assets began failing and no one would buy anymore, leaving the investment banks holding the bag. The Fed bought those assets during the bailout, QE1, 2 &3 totaling ~$22.5 trillion. Later only the fraudsters were permitted to buyback many of those assets for 5 cents on the dollar.

So while your quotes are technically correct they obscure or misconstrue the crimes in an effort to make the public not feel so bad about being screwed again. This tact was rationalized by arguing that the criminal Banks are so vital to the nations economic health that saving them was necessary. This is a false assertion for two reasons. There is no need for the Government to ever borrow from the private sector. Money is just an IOU anyway and the Government can borrow as much as it needs from itself. Powerful money lenders don't want anyone to know this. Secondly the underwater Banks should have been nationalized, like GM, instead of their criminal managers declaring profits after being bailed out by the public, which then led to massive bonuses to those managers for their criminal activities.

#18 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-03-05 08:11 PM

- So while your quotes are technically correct

They are correct in what they assert about causation in regards to the financial crisis.

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2018-03-05 08:16 PM

No wonder you still have faith in the Democratic Party as currently led.

#20 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-03-05 08:36 PM


I still understand that unless a party can win elections, they are a waste of time and energy. And in modern times, and the foreseeable future, that's only one of two partys.

Waiting for the "Perfect Party" is futile.

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2018-03-05 11:25 PM

... or waiting for the "perfect" leader.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2018-03-05 11:26 PM

Banks are owned by rich people and rich people never do anything wrong. That's why they're rich.

#23 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-03-05 11:43 PM

Corky is wedged so deeply in Bill Clinton's colon, that every corn kernel will be tongue-bathed and defended.

#24 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-03-06 01:31 AM

- Krugman


#25 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-03-06 01:32 AM

Krugman is the friendly face of neo-liberalism

#26 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2018-03-06 03:47 AM

corky's argument that supporting the Democratic Party, even as the lesser of two evils, is vitally important when it comes to supreme court appointments. But, other than that, the Democratic Party is a duplicitous organization which only pretends to represent the interests of workers. What is going on in this country now is a terrible tragedy. A model of the success of the dishonest vile principles expounded by Joseph Goebbels.

#27 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-03-06 08:18 AM

- duplicitous organization which only pretends to represent the interests of workers.

Their policies are better for workers than the only other viable party's policies.

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2018-03-06 11:18 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Trump Dumps McMaster for John Bolton (143 comments)

If Russia Does Hack Votes in 2018, U.S. May Not Ever Know (49 comments)

Report: DNC Hacker Guccifer 2.0 Was Russian Officer (40 comments)

Live: March for Our Lives (34 comments)

Pacific Trash Patch Is Many Times Bigger Than We Thought (34 comments)

Trump announces $50bn in China tariffs (31 comments)

Video Suggests Huge Problems with Uber's Driverless Car (25 comments)

Government Can Study Gun Violence (23 comments)

Russia 'arming the Afghan Taliban', Says US (22 comments)