2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"I worked on Wall Street. I am skeptical Hillary Clinton will rein it in."
by Chris Arnade at the Guardian
I owe almost my entire Wall Street career to the Clintons. I am not alone; most bankers owe their careers, and their wealth, to them. Over the last 25 years they with the Clintons it is never just Bill or Hillary implemented policies that placed Wall Street at the center of the Democratic economic agenda, turning it from a party against Wall Street to a party of Wall Street.
That is why when I recently went to see Hillary Clinton campaign for president and speak about reforming Wall Street I was skeptical. What I heard hasnt changed that skepticism. The policies she offers are mid-course corrections. In the Clintons world, Wall Street stays at the center, economically and politically. Given Wall Streets power and influence, that is a dangerous place to leave them.
Salomon Brothers hired me in 1993, seven months after President Bill Clintons inauguration. Getting a job had been easy, Wall Street was booming from deregulation that had begun under Reagan and was continuing under Clinton.
. . .
Despite Wall Streets reticence, key appointments were swinging their way. Robert Rubin, who had been CEO of Goldman Sachs, was appointed to a senior White House job as director of the National Economic Council. The Treasury Department was also being filled with banking friendly economists who saw the markets as a solution, not as a problem.
THE REST:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/28/hillary-clinton-wall-street-bailout?CMP=twt_gu
vi5
(13,305 posts)I mean honestly, even the most full throttled defender of HRC I don't think has ever claimed she would do this. At most they can muster a "Well the Republican would be worse." on that issue.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
As we all know, Hillary says a lot of things.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Clinton supporters don't want serious change. They are quite happy with the status quo.
vi5
(13,305 posts)Much like the Obama apologists I don't think they are happy with the way things are going and don't want change. But they think that having a particular figure head or someone whose presence is historic is more important than actual policies or actions with regard to governing.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)She is one of them.
SamKnause
(13,114 posts)remember which one.
What she alluded to was there will be booms and busts, but
she wants to control or manage those.
Not stop them, but control or manage them.
If you know which debate it was will you let me know ???
Baitball Blogger
(46,776 posts)Those booms are a perfect way to suck in people's pensions and investments, and those busts make a perfect getaway.
SamKnause
(13,114 posts)They are intentional and Hillary wants to continue on this path.
That is why is stood out for me when she said it during a debate.
She is the problem, not the solution.
Triana
(22,666 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Her "let's make the regulators the fall guy for the next crisis" approach is a joke. There is NO WAY that approach is workable.
Wall Street wants to conduct business like a crap-shoot. And why shouldn't they? Nobody goes to jail and they get bonuses.
When Bill Clinton engaged in his touted bi-partisanship and did away with Glass-Stegall the fallout from the S&L debacle was still in process. It was a no-brainer that further deregulation would create a crisis that would make the S&L crisis pale in comparison.
onecaliberal
(32,991 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)More from the Original Article:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/28/hillary-clinton-wall-street-bailout?CMP=twt_gu
The success encouraged the administration, which used it as an economic blueprint that emphasized Wall Street. It also emphasized bailouts, believing it was counterproductive to let banks fail, or to punish them with losses, or fines or, God forbid, charge them with crimes, and risk endangering the economy.
The use of bailouts should have also been a reason to heavily regulate Wall Street, to prevent behavior that would require a bailout. But the administration didnt do that; instead they went the opposite direction and continued to deregulate it, culminating in the repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999.
It changed the trading floor, which started to fill with Democrats. On my trading floor, Robert Rubin, who had joined my firm after leaving the administration, held traders attention by telling long stories and jokes about Bill Clinton to wide-eyed traders.
Wall Street now had both political parties working for them, and really nobody holding them accountable. Now, no trade was too aggressive, no risk too crazy, no behavior to unethical and no loss too painful. It unleashed a boom that produced plenty of smaller crisis (Russia, Dotcom), before culminating in the housing and financial crisis of 2008.
The response to that crisis was Mexico 1995 writ large: bailout the banks and save Wall Street. This time executed by an Obama administration filled with veterans of the Clinton administration, including Hillary Clinton and Larry Summers. Prior to joining Obamas administration as a senator, Hillary Clinton voted to bail-out the banks, a vote she still defends.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)I'd like to read more of this. Thanks.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)money around. You would also have to believe they will not receive a return
on their investment...so why would you vote for someone who takes their
money when you have an alternative?
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Of that I have 100% faith.
The Blue Flower
(5,451 posts)Should be reposted everywhere. Clintons and Wall St. completely intertwined.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)as if their lot in life would crumble without the president shooing the hoi polloi off of them when needed.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)hmm...
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Duckfan
(1,268 posts)Herman4747
(1,825 posts)nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)The use of bailouts should have also been a reason to heavily regulate Wall Street, to prevent behavior that would require a bailout. But the administration didnt do that; instead they went the opposite direction and continued to deregulate it, culminating in the repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999.
It changed the trading floor, which started to fill with Democrats. On my trading floor, Robert Rubin, who had joined my firm after leaving the administration, held traders attention by telling long stories and jokes about Bill Clinton to wide-eyed traders.
Wall Street now had both political parties working for them, and really nobody holding them accountable
There it is.
Iceland did something different
Iceland has jailed 26 bankers, why won't we?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/iceland-has-jailed-26-bankers-why-wont-we-a6735411.html
Iceland Jailed Bankers and Rejected Austerityand Its Been a Success
Instead of imposing devastating austerity measures and bailing out its banks, Iceland let its banks go bust and focused on social welfare policies. It has now repaid 85 percent of U.K. claims, and the Icelandic finance minister announced recently that all will be settled by the end of the year.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/06/12/iceland-jailed-bankers-and-rejected-austerity-and-its-been-success
Iceland Just Jailed Dozens of Corrupt Bankers for 74 Years, the Opposite of What America Does. The prosecution of the Icelandic bankers represents an accountability that does not exist in America.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/iceland-just-jailed-dozens-corrupt-bankers-74-years-opposite-what-america-does
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)to singlehandedly reign in Wall Street. It's not realistic to expect that of anyone. Obama sure didn't do it.