5 ms·

Obama had a lot of specifics during his campaign in 2008 and I think he really believed in some of them. And he accomplished some of them. For instance, he did

by jordanb 10y ago

Obama had a lot of specifics during his campaign in 2008 and I think he really believed in some of them. And he accomplished some of them. For instance, he did pass a heavily watered down healthcare law, and a heavily watered down financial regulation law. He also implemented a way-too-small stimulus. He did promise to renegotiate NAFTA though, walked it back almost immediately and then gave us the TPP instead. During his first overseas trip to London he was asked if the Washington Consensus was dead. He dodged the question. I think he was fundamentally a reactionary in the areas that really matter, and in the areas where people really want hope and change. He appointed Timothy Geithner and Eric Holder and they made sure nobody on Wall Street was ever held accountable. At one point he told Wall Street executives that he was the only thing between them and the pitchforks. Well he's gone now, planning to follow Bill Clinton onto the lecture circuit no doubt. And the pitchforks have gotten sharper than ever because fundamentally, where it really counts, nothing has gotten better since 2008.

rtpg 10y ago
Only those who aren't paying attention can seriously claim nothing has gotten better wrt Wall Street regulation. It's in the same court as "both parties are the same" memes from intellectual laziness. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau has helped make sure that banks can't outright lie about their conflicts of interests. Various Dodd-Frank stuff has helped along that. Billion-dollar fines for 2008's behaviors have meant that banks are losing money. And as an end result, banks are taking the rules more seriously! Hiring "boring" CEOs to help reign in the craziness. Anyone paying attention can see that the financial industry has been preparing itself for a new normal of "not crazily dishonest" (Obviously Trump is changing that posture a bit). It's possible to believe that not enough was done, without saying they're the same. Now... pitchfork sharpness is more connected to impressions than fact. Maybe that's the impression of people. But it's not the reality. PS: who would you rather want in any regulatory body? someone who's worked in the industry before, and understands the issues at stake? Or someone who doesn't understand anything about the industry? Hiring regulators from Wall Street (to a lower paying job) isn't sign of "the power of the lobbies". It's like saying that hiring a former programmer to be a CTO is a conflict of interest. The objective isn't punishment, it's making sure that the financial industry serves its purpose to society properly.

by jordanb 10y ago

rtpg 10y ago

Only those who aren't paying attention can seriously claim nothing has gotten better wrt Wall Street regulation. It's in the same court as "both parties are the same" memes from intellectual laziness. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau has helped make sure that banks can't outright lie about their conflicts of interests. Various Dodd-Frank stuff has helped along that. Billion-dollar fines for 2008's behaviors have meant that banks are losing money. And as an end result, banks are taking the rules more seriously! Hiring "boring" CEOs to help reign in the craziness. Anyone paying attention can see that the financial industry has been preparing itself for a new normal of "not crazily dishonest" (Obviously Trump is changing that posture a bit). It's possible to believe that not enough was done, without saying they're the same. Now... pitchfork sharpness is more connected to impressions than fact. Maybe that's the impression of people. But it's not the reality. PS: who would you rather want in any regulatory body? someone who's worked in the industry before, and understands the issues at stake? Or someone who doesn't understand anything about the industry? Hiring regulators from Wall Street (to a lower paying job) isn't sign of "the power of the lobbies". It's like saying that hiring a former programmer to be a CTO is a conflict of interest. The objective isn't punishment, it's making sure that the financial industry serves its purpose to society properly.