4 ms·

I read the /r/badeconomics post. I don’t see how this is debunking the idea that repealing Glass-Steagall was a bad thing. No second order effects of that rep

by syki 5y ago

I read the /r/badeconomics post. I don’t see how this is debunking the idea that repealing Glass-Steagall was a bad thing. No second order effects of that repeal are discussed and so I get the impression that this is a superficial analysis. I have no expertise in economics or in public policy. Is the referenced Reddit post really definitive? Know of any counter arguments? I’m certainly not claiming that the repeal was the worst thing ever but, as you mentioned, the overall trend of banking deregulation was bad. Rubin went on to earn hundreds of millions at Citibank and the Clintons earned millions giving 30 minute speeches at GS, Citibank and elsewhere on Wall Street. It certainly gives people like me the belief of a quid pro quo for policies enacted during Clinton’s Presidency. This is similar in appearance to Regan earning millions after his Presidency for speeches in Japan (he deregulated Japanese auto sales).

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Please don't take this question as snark or really as anything other than what it looks like: > It certainly gives people like me the belief of a quid pro quo for policies enacted during Clinton’s Presidency. This statement made me think quite hard. Why do I not really believe in quid pro quo's (especially like this)? I didn't come up with any particularly good answers, but it would seem to be related to my own childhood and probably the rest of my life, that seems remarkably free of any such arrangements. I've seen them written about, portrayed on TV and in movies, but never in a way that convinced me that they were real (or common, or something). Now, there's every chance that I'm just simply wrong about this, and quid pro quos really are how the world works. It just doesn't seem that way to me. But then I thought, why not turn the question around. What do you think makes you believe that quid pro quo's like this are actually a thing?
- tjalfi 5y ago
  > This statement made me think quite hard. Why do I not really believe in quid pro quo's (especially like this)? I didn't come up with any particularly good answers, but it would seem to be related to my own childhood and probably the rest of my life, that seems remarkably free of any such arrangements. I've seen them written about, portrayed on TV and in movies, but never in a way that convinced me that they were real (or common, or something). Now, there's every chance that I'm just simply wrong about this, and quid pro quos really are how the world works. It just doesn't seem that way to me. Quid pro quos[0] are how the world works; you may not have been exposed to it. If you want a detailed discussion of corruption, the book Game of Mates[1] documents corrupt dealing in Australia. If you want a domestic example, look at Illinois politics. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_briber... [1] https://gameofmates.com/ https://gameofmates.com/
- syki 5y ago
  I have a simplistic view of such things: follow the money. Does Goldman Sachs really feel that Clinton speeches are worth the tens of millions they have paid for them? The reasonable explanation in my mind is that it is a quid pro quo. People don’t spend that kind of money without getting something in return. Tom Delay and K Street are proof enough of high level corruption and paybacks for enacting certain policies. Obama wouldn’t have ever afforded a $5 million house in D.C. until he became President. I might be overly cynical though. https://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinto...
- slowmovintarget 5y ago
  Because the guy who was Treasury Secretary at the time was given a job at Citi Group a short while after the repeal, and Citi was the company that a) violated the law, and b) benefited most by its repeal. They were also the ones putting enormous lobby pressure on everyone, throwing around a ton of money. The repeal was bought and paid for.

by syki 5y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

Please don't take this question as snark or really as anything other than what it looks like: > It certainly gives people like me the belief of a quid pro quo for policies enacted during Clinton’s Presidency. This statement made me think quite hard. Why do I not really believe in quid pro quo's (especially like this)? I didn't come up with any particularly good answers, but it would seem to be related to my own childhood and probably the rest of my life, that seems remarkably free of any such arrangements. I've seen them written about, portrayed on TV and in movies, but never in a way that convinced me that they were real (or common, or something). Now, there's every chance that I'm just simply wrong about this, and quid pro quos really are how the world works. It just doesn't seem that way to me. But then I thought, why not turn the question around. What do you think makes you believe that quid pro quo's like this are actually a thing?

tjalfi 5y ago
> This statement made me think quite hard. Why do I not really believe in quid pro quo's (especially like this)? I didn't come up with any particularly good answers, but it would seem to be related to my own childhood and probably the rest of my life, that seems remarkably free of any such arrangements. I've seen them written about, portrayed on TV and in movies, but never in a way that convinced me that they were real (or common, or something). Now, there's every chance that I'm just simply wrong about this, and quid pro quos really are how the world works. It just doesn't seem that way to me. Quid pro quos[0] are how the world works; you may not have been exposed to it. If you want a detailed discussion of corruption, the book Game of Mates[1] documents corrupt dealing in Australia. If you want a domestic example, look at Illinois politics. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_briber... [1] https://gameofmates.com/ https://gameofmates.com/
syki 5y ago
I have a simplistic view of such things: follow the money. Does Goldman Sachs really feel that Clinton speeches are worth the tens of millions they have paid for them? The reasonable explanation in my mind is that it is a quid pro quo. People don’t spend that kind of money without getting something in return. Tom Delay and K Street are proof enough of high level corruption and paybacks for enacting certain policies. Obama wouldn’t have ever afforded a $5 million house in D.C. until he became President. I might be overly cynical though. https://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinto...
slowmovintarget 5y ago
Because the guy who was Treasury Secretary at the time was given a job at Citi Group a short while after the repeal, and Citi was the company that a) violated the law, and b) benefited most by its repeal. They were also the ones putting enormous lobby pressure on everyone, throwing around a ton of money. The repeal was bought and paid for.