4 ms·

You meant to say claimed to have those principles. If everyone actually had those principles, the financial crisis would have never happened.

by steego 10y ago

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.

You meant to say claimed to have those principles. If everyone actually had those principles, the financial crisis would have never happened.

by 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.