+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: The Future of Dodd-Frank (/Thread-The-Future-of-Dodd-Frank)
The Future of Dodd-Frank - Belsnickel - 05-24-2017
There have been statements by members of Congress, as well as Trump, regarding the appeal of Dodd-Frank. Now, I'm not a fan of the legislation, but likely for opposite reasons than Republicans or conservatives are. I wanted us to go further with it. I don't like the "too big to fail" idea, they should have been left to fail and the legislation should have separated investment and consumer banking again. I see that as a mistake that is going to be the cause of problems because of our refusal to learn from history.
What would you all like to see done with regards to regulations of the financial industry? Do you think the big banks should be broken up, or do you think we should leave them to their own devices? Do you think we should have bailed them out nearly a decade ago?
RE: The Future of Dodd-Frank - GMDino - 05-24-2017
(05-24-2017, 11:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There have been statements by members of Congress, as well as Trump, regarding the appeal of Dodd-Frank. Now, I'm not a fan of the legislation, but likely for opposite reasons than Republicans or conservatives are. I wanted us to go further with it. I don't like the "too big to fail" idea, they should have been left to fail and the legislation should have separated investment and consumer banking again. I see that as a mistake that is going to be the cause of problems because of our refusal to learn from history.
What would you all like to see done with regards to regulations of the financial industry? Do you think the big banks should be broken up, or do you think we should leave them to their own devices? Do you think we should have bailed them out nearly a decade ago?
My concern with the bailout was/is that nothing would be learned and we'd go right back to the same old behaviors.
There HAS to be regulation when these guys are playing with OUR money. And there has to be oversight. And there has to be protection for the investors...us.
But that's who is running the show: Guys with lots of money who know they can fall back on the govt to save them all the while complaining about (and trying to remove) all the safety nets for the rest of us.
RE: The Future of Dodd-Frank - michaelsean - 05-24-2017
I disagreed with the bailouts on a philosophical level, but people who know more than me said we would have been cutting off our nose to spite our face so I have no idea.
RE: The Future of Dodd-Frank - fredtoast - 05-24-2017
(05-24-2017, 01:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I disagreed with the bailouts on a philosophical level, but people who know more than me said we would have been cutting off our nose to spite our face so I have no idea.
But both you and those other people should agree that we need government regulation to make sure it does not happen again.
RE: The Future of Dodd-Frank - Benton - 05-24-2017
My issue is the treatment of small banks as big banks. They aren't the same and shouldn't be lumped in to the same regulations. But as far as treatment of big banks, there should be more safe guards in place.
RE: The Future of Dodd-Frank - Goalpost - 05-24-2017
I am for Dodd Frank staying in place. It basically ensures that Banks have provable assets on their balance sheets. I am not for more government regulation. A big part of the housing crisis was the government....Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They couldn't even regulate themselves.
RE: The Future of Dodd-Frank - Belsnickel - 05-24-2017
(05-24-2017, 03:16 PM)Goalpost Wrote: I am for Dodd Frank staying in place. It basically ensures that Banks have provable assets on their balance sheets. I am not for more government regulation. A big part of the housing crisis was the government....Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They couldn't even regulate themselves.
The problem wasn't regulation, the problem was that they (the government beyond Fannie and Freddie) wanted people to buy houses and pushed the idea of these subprime mortgages. Another issue there lies in the accountability issues inherent with the type of organizational structure those two have. The ability to have the government backing their liabilities gives Fannie and Freddie more ability to be risky with their investments. This makes them an unfair competitor in the market and has the potential to blow up in their face. If anything, tighter regulations on them and the rest of the financial sector could have prevented things from going as far as they did. But, because the neo-liberal economic movement since Reagan has been all about playing nice with Wall Street and letting them babysit themselves, it's no surprise it happened the way it did.
It should be noted that a commission on the recession found that the impact these activities from Fannie and Freddie played on the recession was minimal, but I remain skeptical of that.
RE: The Future of Dodd-Frank - THE Bigzoman - 05-25-2017
Pretty sure I already told you in another Dodd frank thread.
RE: The Future of Dodd-Frank - Belsnickel - 05-25-2017
(05-25-2017, 02:21 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Pretty sure I already told you in another Dodd frank thread.
I'm just trying to do something different than "look at how stupid Trump is!" I mean, there is plenty of material there, but I'd much rather be focusing on policy than that. Especially because Congress isn't sitting idle.
RE: The Future of Dodd-Frank - Dill - 05-30-2017
(05-24-2017, 11:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There have been statements by members of Congress, as well as Trump, regarding the appeal of Dodd-Frank. Now, I'm not a fan of the legislation, but likely for opposite reasons than Republicans or conservatives are. I wanted us to go further with it. I don't like the "too big to fail" idea, they should have been left to fail and the legislation should have separated investment and consumer banking again. I see that as a mistake that is going to be the cause of problems because of our refusal to learn from history.
What would you all like to see done with regards to regulations of the financial industry? Do you think the big banks should be broken up, or do you think we should leave them to their own devices? Do you think we should have bailed them out nearly a decade ago?
No, they should not all have been left to fail.
And yes, legislation should have separated investment and commercial banking. Glass Steagal was working for everyone but the speculators.
I think the government should interfere in the free market to prevent depressions and recessions. If breaking up the big banks will do that, then yes.