2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumKrugman: On financial reform, Clinton has "the better case"
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had an argument about financial regulation during Tuesdays debate but it wasnt about whether to crack down on banks. Instead, it was about whose plan was tougher. The contrast with Republicans like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, who have pledged to reverse even the moderate financial reforms enacted in 2010, couldnt be stronger.
For what its worth, Mrs. Clinton had the better case. Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake. But its not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from shadow banks like Lehman Brothers, which dont take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasnt.
But is Mrs. Clintons promise to take a tough line on the financial industry credible? Or would she, once in the White House, return to the finance-friendly, deregulatory policies of the 1990s?
Well, if Wall Streets attitude and its political giving are any indication, financiers themselves believe that any Democrat, Mrs. Clinton very much included, would be serious about policing their industrys excesses. And thats why theyre doing all they can to elect a Republican.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html?_r=0
djean111
(14,255 posts)I do not believe any of Hillary's promises for one second. She would say anything in order to get elected, and then - Third Way. All the way.
I'm staying far away from anyone that still trusts her.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...
If a Democrat does win, does it matter much which one it is? Probably not. Any Democrat is likely to retain the financial reforms of 2010, and seek to stiffen them where possible. But major new reforms will be blocked until and unless Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress, which isnt likely to happen for a long time.
In other words, while there are some differences in financial policy between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, as a practical matter theyre trivial compared with the yawning gulf with Republicans.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Bernie doesn't have a Wall Street plan. And it showed.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)And break up any banks that are too big to fail.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)That would be a reverse.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Merger mania is all about increasing "valuation" by reducing competition and employee "redundancies".
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Matariki
(18,775 posts)"Or would she, once in the White House, return to the finance-friendly, deregulatory policies of the 1990s? "
And that's the million dollar question as far as I'm concerned.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Why, Paul?
Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake.
OK, so this makes Sanders' plan better by Krugman's own analysis because Clinton does not want to correct this mistake.
But its not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from shadow banks like Lehman Brothers, which dont take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasnt.
So why does a plan to rein in shadow banks beat a the plan to reinstate Glass-Steagall? And exactly what is the plan to rein in shadow banks? Is it a plan to break up Goldman Sachs or to make things harder for Goldman Sach's competitors? Krugman never tells why Clinton's plan is superior to reinstating Glass-Steagall and breaking up all too big to fail banks, just that it is.
The rest of the article just draws a contrast between Democrats and Republicans. Yes, Democrats are marginally better.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts)As economist Richard Wolff has pointed out, so long as the current system of campaign financing remains in place, and so long as the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling stands, regulatory success in reining in the excesses of capitalism will be marginal and temporary, at best.
Broward
(1,976 posts)of the big banks. That alone gives Bernie the edge.