• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Elizabeth Warren to Dems: Kill the bill

You answered your own question. Every one has the opportunity to build a business, but only those with the motivation and ability do it. In other words, they DID BUILD THAT.

You win a brief moment of clarity into your liberal mindset.

You're correct in many respects, but you have to admit we all have help along the way. Nobody goes it alone. This is probably what Obama's speechwriters meant.
 
You certainly insinuated it.

Incorrect. I did nothing of the sort. Saying what I and many others believe will happen as a result of her consumer protection push is in no way insinuating that she supports the end result. What it means is that she has not thought out the end result because she isn't as clued in as some of you believe she is. She is a bankruptcy attorney, not an expert on the banking industry in this country.
 
Has anyone explained in this thread yet why this entire thing is political grandstanding over the revocation of a technical and arbitrary rule that has little to no impact on "derivatives trading" and risk allocation in the financial industry? Because this entire thing is pointless politicking. The push out rule is dumb and should be repealed.
 
they each said what i posted
wealth was not created without state assistance
in every instance
a reality anathema to the white wing


And state assistance is not possible without taxes primarily from businesses and the wealthy.

A reality anathema to the giveaway wing.
 
Has anyone explained in this thread yet why this entire thing is political grandstanding over the revocation of a technical and arbitrary rule that has little to no impact on "derivatives trading" and risk allocation in the financial industry? Because this entire thing is pointless politicking. The push out rule is dumb and should be repealed.

Actually, I already explained that.

However, good to know that I'm not the only one who sees this.
 
Has anyone explained in this thread yet why this entire thing is political grandstanding over the revocation of a technical and arbitrary rule that has little to no impact on "derivatives trading" and risk allocation in the financial industry? Because this entire thing is pointless politicking. The push out rule is dumb and should be repealed.

why is it not prudent to have the banks push out their derivative trades to an affiliate so that any losses sustained would not be subject to government assistance in the form of a bailout
if the financial institution reaps the profits from such trades, why should the taxpayer be subject to absorbing the potential losses resulting from such derivative plays
 
why is it not prudent to have the banks push out their derivative trades to an affiliate so that any losses sustained would not be subject to government assistance in the form of a bailout
if the financial institution reaps the profits from such trades, why should the taxpayer be subject to absorbing the potential losses resulting from such derivative plays

Because it doesn't do anything, it requires banks to move client's hedging investments in certain swaps out of bank accounts and into broker dealer accounts, which really does nothing. Sure the bank accounts are FDIC insured and the broker dealer accounts aren't, but there's no scenario where the investment banks go down and the banks don't. Also, these types of derivatives (interest rate swaps, for example) had nothing to do with the financial crisis.

So there's what it doesn't do. What does it do? Well, for one it basically lumps a bunch of different types of derivatives together and treats them in the same manner, without understanding the risk profile of the very, very different types of swap and forward contracts that it regulates. It increases issues in the banking industry because banks can't easily determine what kind of "risky" derivatives fall under the rule. The market is very complex, and this regulation shows that the SEC doesn't understand that. Finally, the concept of "risk" in certain derivatives isn't uniform. For example, many of the "riskier" swaps are used by companies to hedge, which actually stabilizes the market.

Why do banks want the push out regulation revoked? Pretty simple. It increase costs and risk for the big banks that don't fully understand how to properly apply the regulation because the SEC themselves don't really know. It makes it more difficult to service these contracts, which aren't inherently risky so that isn't necessarily a good thing like most anti-bankster folks will claim. And so bank costs and difficulty of doing business go up, which translates into a lower level of service for their clients. This isn't a conspiracy to deregulate the financial markets, it's an attempt to revoke a very confusing and ignorant law that doesn't really do anything except make it tougher for banks to do business.
 
Because it doesn't do anything, it requires banks to move client's hedging investments in certain swaps out of bank accounts and into broker dealer accounts, which really does nothing. Sure the bank accounts are FDIC insured and the broker dealer accounts aren't, but there's no scenario where the investment banks go down and the banks don't. Also, these types of derivatives (interest rate swaps, for example) had nothing to do with the financial crisis.

So there's what it doesn't do. What does it do? Well, for one it basically lumps a bunch of different types of derivatives together and treats them in the same manner, without understanding the risk profile of the very, very different types of swap and forward contracts that it regulates. It increases issues in the banking industry because banks can't easily determine what kind of "risky" derivatives fall under the rule. The market is very complex, and this regulation shows that the SEC doesn't understand that. Finally, the concept of "risk" in certain derivatives isn't uniform. For example, many of the "riskier" swaps are used by companies to hedge, which actually stabilizes the market.

Why do banks want the push out regulation revoked? Pretty simple. It increase costs and risk for the big banks that don't fully understand how to properly apply the regulation because the SEC themselves don't really know. It makes it more difficult to service these contracts, which aren't inherently risky so that isn't necessarily a good thing like most anti-bankster folks will claim. And so bank costs and difficulty of doing business go up, which translates into a lower level of service for their clients. This isn't a conspiracy to deregulate the financial markets, it's an attempt to revoke a very confusing and ignorant law that doesn't really do anything except make it tougher for banks to do business.

You forgot to mention that it makes zero sense to actually prohibit something that is widely available in other nations. It deters competition in global financial markets, something that the US can't afford.

But basically everything that you have just said.
 
why is it not prudent to have the banks push out their derivative trades to an affiliate so that any losses sustained would not be subject to government assistance in the form of a bailout
if the financial institution reaps the profits from such trades, why should the taxpayer be subject to absorbing the potential losses resulting from such derivative plays

You people had NO problem with the 5 Trillion bailout l of the two biggest players in the run up to the Subprime mortgage crisis.

Neither does that Hack Warren. ( which is WHY she's a unmitigated hack )

TARP was repaid, Fannie and Freddies debt is sitting on the Books of the Fed and the Treasury.

Yours and Warrens selective outrage is a bit hypocritical.
 
You people had NO problem with the 5 Trillion bailout l of the two biggest players in the run up to the Subprime mortgage crisis.

Neither does that Hack Warren. ( which is WHY she's a unmitigated hack )

TARP was repaid, Fannie and Freddies debt is sitting on the Books of the Fed and the Treasury.

Yours and Warrens selective outrage is a bit hypocritical.

nowhere did i see you answer the question i posed
here it is
have another whack at it ... only this time, try to respond to the actual question:
why is it not prudent to have the banks push out their derivative trades to an affiliate so that any losses sustained would not be subject to government assistance in the form of a bailout
if the financial institution reaps the profits from such trades, why should the taxpayer be subject to absorbing the potential losses resulting from such derivative plays
 
Back
Top Bottom