4 ms·

If you just listed the core principles outlined here for anyone I don't see how they could find anything disagreeable. This sounds great, especially points a an

If you just listed the core principles outlined here for anyone I don't see how they could find anything disagreeable. This sounds great, especially points a and b.

kafkaesq 10y ago
Which is exactly the take-away he wants you to have.
tptacek 10y ago
It sounds great because there is no administration in the last 50 years that didn't already have those principles. This executive order doesn't say anything.
- jfaucett 10y ago
  True for most, but points b and g seem to be much more recent concerns, especially with the billowing national debt.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Preventing future bailouts was a charter goal for the Obama administration, and the reason for the financial industry regulations (fought tooth and nail by the GOP) that this EO is subtextually putting on the chopping block.
    - nickff 10y ago
      Preventing bailouts might have been a charter goal for Obama, but his administration actually made the "too big to fail" institutions larger, and it seems like everyone still believes that the government will provide bailouts whenever the next crisis happens. Those regulations increased (fixed) compliance costs, and improved economies of scale, making it tougher for 'small' banks. I am not sure if the Trump administration can or will do anything about that.
    - 464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
      > subtextually Translation: there is nothing actually in there about removing those regulations. You (and others, MSM outlets included) are attempting to manufacture outrage.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        You can rebut an argument you disagree with without being uncivil. In this case, I agree that the wording of the EO doesn't talk about deregulation. Unfortunately for your argument, Trump has in fact spent the day talking about pruning back Dodd-Frank.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Actually it says quite a lot -- you just have to read between the lines. And consider certain things that he's said on the campaign trail (for example, his pledge to "do a big number" on Dodd-Frank). Language like "enable American companies to be competitive with foreign firms in domestic and foreign markets" is, in the crowd he runs with, a standard euphemism for "scrap as much oversight and regulation as we can possibly get away with", for example.
  - analogwzrd 10y ago
    I didn't interpret that as him saying he was going to do away with regulations and oversight. I read it as him saying he's going to increase tariffs and punish American companies who outsource and try to move operations oversees. He may do both.
- steego 10y ago
  You meant to say claimed to have those principles. If everyone actually had those principles, the financial crisis would have never happened.
  - sverige 10y ago
    Correct. There are quite a few reasons that both the Bush neocons and the Democrats opposed Trump, and one of those reasons is that Trump attacked the "too big to fail" banks during his campaign. I think it's a mistake to read this as being entirely favorable to those banks. They are still trying to figure out how to profit off the move away from globalism, and while they are likely to be able to do so, there is no question that their core principles are opposed to those stated here.
    - steego 10y ago
      Too many indefinite article can be confusing, especially when you're talking about politics and people's/group's interests. > I think it's a mistake to read this as being entirely favorable to those banks You're referring to the EO, or the campaign promise? > They are still trying to figure out how to profit off the move away from globalism Are you referring to the banks or the interests backing Trump? > there is no question that their core principles are opposed to those stated here We're talking about the banks? Clearly the banks don't like the rhetoric of "too big to fail". If Trump manages to show an effective display of power over the next 100 days, he may have the leverage he wants to do something. Now, I think it's silly for anybody to speculate what that something is because he's been very vague about it. That works for him because it gives him the option to save face with his supported by producing watered-down reform if he's unable to affect truly effective regulatory change. The question is: What might Trump want from the banks? It's important to enumerate both selfless and self-serving reasons. Does he want something personally, or does he want political support for something he wants to do? What is he willing to negotiate? Taking on the banks is not an easy feat. I suspect Trump has cozied up with other special interests that will give him the backing to take on the banks, but it will probably cost us our environment and it could very likely lead to more antagonism and campaigns in the Middle East. Some people think he's being dopey when he says, "We should have taken the oil". I suspect he's securing another option that he can call on when he needs something.
st3v3r 10y ago
What part of repealing the rule that financial advisors have to act in the client's best interest, instead of their own, is "great", exactly?
- 464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
  Where, exactly, is that in this EO?
  - sverige 10y ago
    It isn't anywhere in this EO. It is only in the NYT's reinterpretation of the EO.
    - 464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
      That was exactly my point :)

If you just listed the core principles outlined here for anyone I don't see how they could find anything disagreeable. This sounds great, especially points a and b.

kafkaesq 10y ago

Which is exactly the take-away he wants you to have.

tptacek 10y ago

It sounds great because there is no administration in the last 50 years that didn't already have those principles. This executive order doesn't say anything.

jfaucett 10y ago
True for most, but points b and g seem to be much more recent concerns, especially with the billowing national debt.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Preventing future bailouts was a charter goal for the Obama administration, and the reason for the financial industry regulations (fought tooth and nail by the GOP) that this EO is subtextually putting on the chopping block.
  - nickff 10y ago
    Preventing bailouts might have been a charter goal for Obama, but his administration actually made the "too big to fail" institutions larger, and it seems like everyone still believes that the government will provide bailouts whenever the next crisis happens. Those regulations increased (fixed) compliance costs, and improved economies of scale, making it tougher for 'small' banks. I am not sure if the Trump administration can or will do anything about that.
  - 464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
    > subtextually Translation: there is nothing actually in there about removing those regulations. You (and others, MSM outlets included) are attempting to manufacture outrage.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      You can rebut an argument you disagree with without being uncivil. In this case, I agree that the wording of the EO doesn't talk about deregulation. Unfortunately for your argument, Trump has in fact spent the day talking about pruning back Dodd-Frank.
kafkaesq 10y ago
Actually it says quite a lot -- you just have to read between the lines. And consider certain things that he's said on the campaign trail (for example, his pledge to "do a big number" on Dodd-Frank). Language like "enable American companies to be competitive with foreign firms in domestic and foreign markets" is, in the crowd he runs with, a standard euphemism for "scrap as much oversight and regulation as we can possibly get away with", for example.
- analogwzrd 10y ago
  I didn't interpret that as him saying he was going to do away with regulations and oversight. I read it as him saying he's going to increase tariffs and punish American companies who outsource and try to move operations oversees. He may do both.
steego 10y ago
You meant to say claimed to have those principles. If everyone actually had those principles, the financial crisis would have never happened.
- sverige 10y ago
  Correct. There are quite a few reasons that both the Bush neocons and the Democrats opposed Trump, and one of those reasons is that Trump attacked the "too big to fail" banks during his campaign. I think it's a mistake to read this as being entirely favorable to those banks. They are still trying to figure out how to profit off the move away from globalism, and while they are likely to be able to do so, there is no question that their core principles are opposed to those stated here.
  - steego 10y ago
    Too many indefinite article can be confusing, especially when you're talking about politics and people's/group's interests. > I think it's a mistake to read this as being entirely favorable to those banks You're referring to the EO, or the campaign promise? > They are still trying to figure out how to profit off the move away from globalism Are you referring to the banks or the interests backing Trump? > there is no question that their core principles are opposed to those stated here We're talking about the banks? Clearly the banks don't like the rhetoric of "too big to fail". If Trump manages to show an effective display of power over the next 100 days, he may have the leverage he wants to do something. Now, I think it's silly for anybody to speculate what that something is because he's been very vague about it. That works for him because it gives him the option to save face with his supported by producing watered-down reform if he's unable to affect truly effective regulatory change. The question is: What might Trump want from the banks? It's important to enumerate both selfless and self-serving reasons. Does he want something personally, or does he want political support for something he wants to do? What is he willing to negotiate? Taking on the banks is not an easy feat. I suspect Trump has cozied up with other special interests that will give him the backing to take on the banks, but it will probably cost us our environment and it could very likely lead to more antagonism and campaigns in the Middle East. Some people think he's being dopey when he says, "We should have taken the oil". I suspect he's securing another option that he can call on when he needs something.

st3v3r 10y ago

What part of repealing the rule that financial advisors have to act in the client's best interest, instead of their own, is "great", exactly?

464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
Where, exactly, is that in this EO?
- sverige 10y ago
  It isn't anywhere in this EO. It is only in the NYT's reinterpretation of the EO.
  - 464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
    That was exactly my point :)