Hillary Clinton's plan to tame big banks shows her at her wonkish best

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Hillary Clinton has often stood accused of pandering or shaping policy proposals for political purposes, but her proposals for improving regulation of the financial system show her doing exactly the opposite — tackling the issue of mega-bank risk in a thoughtful way that is likely to prove politically thankless.

Her idea — not exactly optimized for a 15-second television spot — is to "charge a graduated risk fee every year on the liabilities of banks with more than $50 billion in assets and other financial institutions that are designed by regulators for enhanced oversight," with fees scaled to be "higher for firms with greater amounts of debt and riskier, short-term forms of debt."

It's a mouthful. Banks will hate it. It doesn't feature a crowd-pleasing, populist applause line. And it's a pretty great idea.

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/9/9483329/hillary-clinton-banks

[Armstead]

1. Wonkishness has its place, but this ignores the Forest by focusing on the trees

Too Big is Too Big. Period. It creates an oligarchy, extreme class divisions, intensified concentration of wealth and undermines democracy.

The complete abandonment of the idea of Anti-Trust and Anti-Monopoly regulations and enforcement has been a major cause of many of our problems since the mid-1970's. Including intensifying issues of poverty and opportunity.

We have allowed big corporations in EVERY industry to swallow up competitors and/or merge in a geometric progression in a way that has destroyed the concept of competitive free enterprise, helped to eliminate and downscale jobs, and eroded the standard of living, consumer choice and created MASSIVE and scary monopolies that have far too much power.

It has been a geometric process because each merger/acquisition has become bigger and more concentrated -- 20 businesses become 10 become 5 become 2 -- and eventually it could be 1. And worse yet, these corporations have often crossed into many other industries. GE, for example, is not just a manufacturer -- it's also a major financial institution.

Wonkishness has its place in terms of how to determine too big, and the specific mechanisms to regulate.

But it needs to be in the fundamental context of Too Big is Too Big.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. It's pretty dense stuff

It's pretty dense stuff but she plans to create a fee arrangement where the fees a bank pays to the government goes up with the amount of the risk they assume. That doesn't strike me as anything but a good thing.

[Armstead]

3. It's a good thing but it doesnlt go far enough

I wonlt repeat what I said above, but we need more than tinkering around the edges while pretending we live in either a democracy or a competitive capitalist system any more. We live in an oligarchy, that is intensifying class divisions, and pushing (or keeping) a majority of the population down. We are heading towards the status of a large Banana Republic.

The crash of 2008 was just a taste of the results of allowing a handful of Too Big To Fail financial institutions to control so much of our economy.

I realize that sounds radical, but it is a radical situation.

I've been keeping track off this trend professionally and personally since the 1970's. And we are nearing the point of no return. We have to wake up and smell the coffee, and realize that we have allowed the conditions of the Gilded Age to return on a much more virulent scale. Little micro wonkishness to avoid the larger issue is like taking an aspirin to mask a tumor.

Until we acknowledge that and decide to change course, it's only going to continue to get worse.

[Armstead]

4. This chart shows the problem

A little out of date but....
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/bank-merger-history

[ibegurpard]

5. here's the problem

People have no confidence that she will fight for this. It's why she's getting the flack for her statements about the TPP. Her past record and her fundraising are in conflict with what she plans. She is asking people to take a leap of faith for her instead of someone who has always been an advocate for the policies she is now touting. People may start to believe her if she actually follows through but they're not going to believe her now.

[JaneyVee]

6. To be fair, I think it was written by Wall Street watchdogs.

But nevertheless, that's exactly who I would want a president to refer to when writing policy.

[uponit7771]

7. Good for her, K&R