@newtboy: Trumps appeal to the LCD is successful mostly because the LCD has been allowed to grow so much in our post-Regan society. With inequality on the rise and decades of trickle-down government-by-the-wealthy-for-the-wealthy, those "left behind" have been growing faster and faster every year.

It Trump fails to win this go around then the pendulum may keep swinging further. My concern is that the next 'protest' candidate will be even worse than he.

@ChaosEngine:

We'll have to agree to disagree about some things. For me, as bad as Trump is, I'm not convinced that he is worse than what Hillary was revealted to be by the DNC Leaks...

...but perhaps instead of arguing about which shit sandwich is worse, it is more productive to work together to find out why there are only shit sandwiches on the menu?

On this:

"But things will never change until you fix your broken political system. You're barely a democracy these days."

I am in complete agreement.

When I first heard of the Brexit vote, I thought it was some nasty xenophobic/racist group that had somehow managed to capture 51% of a nation. But could Britian really be that full of xenophobes? It was in a bit of casual research on the subject when I discovered that J. Pie video I referenced in my earlier comment. I had to revise my first assumption about the group that voted to leave the E.U.. While there may have been an element of xenophobia involved, it was economic factors that was the driving force behind the Brexit vote.

People who have been screwed over by years of government for corporations which has only worsened since Glass–Steagall was repealed by Bill Clinton. The hold the wealthy have on government was tightened after Citizen's United.

Much of the support Trump has been able to marshal is a reaction to years of governance-for-the-wealthy-by-the-wealthy.

Lawrence Lessig's does a better job unpacking this quagmire in his talk: "We The People: the Republic We Must Reclaim" which has far too few views on YT or votes on the sift, IMO. For anyone who's ever been unhappy with the political system in the past number of years, I consider it a must-watch.


Link here:

http://videosift.com/video/lawrence-lessig-2016-will-have-two-elections-TED-talk

As always, my views are just a layman's perspective with no claims to expertise.

@RedSky

You correctly point out the intent of the reform, to stop fractional banking which they diagnosed as a primary driver of volatility within the financial sector. They want to revert back to a system where the banks were intermediaries the way you described it: deposit leads to loan, in this case at a maximum ratio of 1:1, no leveraging.

Unlike the current system where bank deposits are mostly created by banks themselves -- the act of lending creates deposits. In fact, deposits are liabilities of the banks, not assets. Reserves are assets, but they are only traded between entities with accounts at the central bank. And, in normal times, are provided quite freely by the central bank in exchange for other assets.

Anyway, "Vollgeld" places the ability to create money exclusively in the hands of the central bank. Controlling the amount of money in circulation was a concept most central banks were eager to drop during the '90s, since it never worked. Demand for credit is volatile, central control is inflexible, even if they could somehow quanfity the need for it ex ante -- which they can't. Hell, they can't even do it ex post. You can't quantify the need for additional money beyond what's already in circulation if the central bank's action set the conditions for a dynamic development in the first place. You can't know in advance what increases in production need to be financed, you can't know how demand for liquidity evolves over time. The quantity theory of money was buried for a reason, it ignores reality.

Anyway, I applaud the proponents of Vollgeld for pointing out the dysfunctionalities of our fractional reserve system as well as how questionable it is, ethically, to hand over so much power to a small cabal of financial elites. In fact, I'm quite ecstatic to hear them point out that a nation with a sovereign, free-floating currency does not need to finance deficits through banks -- how very MMT of them. Go OMF!

But their proposed solutions are a fallback to "the market will stabilise itself if left alone, a completely independant central bank will keep the quantity of money in circulation at just the right amount". This hands-off approach resulted in absolute devastation whenever it was applied. They want to turn the state into a regular economic subject that has to adapt to the amount of money currently in circulation. It's (the illusion of) control by technocrats, where you get to disguise policies against the masses as "economic neccessities". Basically the German Eurozone on steroids.

As for the absolute independence of the central bank: you are right, that is not strictly part of the Swiss Vollgeld initiative. But it's what almost every proponent of Vollgeld within the German-speaking circles argues for, including major drivers behind the initiative. Can't let politicians have control over our central bank or else they'll abuse it for populist policies.

They are true believers in technocrat solutions, completely seperate from democratic control.

PS: I cut down my ranting to a minimum of MMT arguments, given that many people see it as just a different sort of voodoo economics.

Edit: Elizabeth Warren's 21st Century Glass Steagal Act strikes me as a rather promising way to solve a great number of problems with the financial industry without going back into the realm of monetarism.

yes and also nothing to do with the 7 years of Bush running the country after that....

Although Clinton fucked up big time when he allowed the repeal of Glass-Steagall

Hey Obama...what about the Glass-Steagal Act that you don't fucking support reenacting?

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's no wonder liberals are melting down; President Obama couldn't have done worse last night. It was pretty shocking. I personally didn't expect Governor Romney to do very well. To my surprise, he looked way more presidential than the President did. The fact is that President Obama has been in a bubble the last four years, and I think this was an the emperor has no clothes moment. The press certainly hasn't done him any favors by coddling him and throwing him softball questions this entire time. He's never had to justify himself or his policies to anyone and this was a day of reckoning for him.
I also think this one debate has undone all of the negative advertising about Governor Romney that had come before it. The reason being is that he didn't even remotely resemble the person Democrats have been trying to define him as. People got to seem him unfiltered and unedited by the mainstream press, and he came across as a strong and competent leader who cares about them and has the skills and experience to be the President. I expect there will be more fireworks at the next debate.

Apparently we weren't watching the same debate. What I saw was two candidates talking about essentially the exact same policies. They were both Center Right...and one was more smiley and UP. So does the smiley guy win it for being smiley?
Whatever, they've still got a couple more "Games" left and when all is said and done whomever wins won't implement whatever ideas they expressed during the debates anyways. GOOD Game all! GO TEAM GO!!!

I think the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives in policy is that liberals want government to be their God. There were definitely differences between the two candidates on that specific topic. I don't subscribe to the team mentality; I cannot in good conscience vote for either candidate. I think America is getting the leaders it deserves, and these two candidates are a reflection of that. You reap what you sow.


That depends entirely on what you mean by "America". If you mean the American people, they didn't get together and make policies for these candidates to stick their names to, these candidates said vote for me and maybe I'll give you something. Now if by "America" you mean the elite, the people with the money who bascially dictate how society will run than I agree these candidates were chosen by them. The PR industry now gets to fight it out, and it's completely undemocratic. Even in Bolivia poor peasant farmers worked for a more democratic system and they got it, but that didn't stop them they kept at it.

Both these candidates will say whatever they want to get elected, and then they'll do whatever their masters who paid for them to get there want. That's how our "Democracy" works.

Also if you think Obama was a "Liberal" than you really have no idea what that means. If Obama was what we traditionally called "Liberal" who would've at least brought up or tried to reinstitute the Glass-Steagall act.

@kevingrr

I think there is a lot of reason to be angry, and increasingly a sense that the traditional tools of policy and working within the system have failed us. Jamie Dimon is no hero. He's one of the key people that fought tooth and nail to keep effective regulations from being drafted. They talk big about the natural consequences of the market, and then they go and benefit more than almost any other industry from the government tit. It's disgusting hypocrisy.

I'm also surprised that you would talk about being from the real estate sector, and not be familiar with at least the putative benefits of the securitization of debt (the reason the needed to repeal glass steagall). If you are waiting for a return to the ease of real estate finance you may have experienced in the past decade or two of frothy CDOs you're kidding yourself. The party is over. There needs to be a return to actual underwriting standards, and an enforcement of those standards. That means paperwork. Sorry.

@bmacs27

I am completely on board with good legislation and I do think there is too much capital concentration in the financial sector.


Compensation wise I don't care what the banks want to compensate their employees. It's up to their boards, shareholders, and the market to decide that.

A more major concern for me is are we facing an oligopoly in banking? With smaller community banks being squeezed out that could become a real issue. At present I think most banks still have to be pretty competitive to make it, but that could change.

As I said in an earlier post, "Make the rules simple, make them fair, and enforce them effectively."

Glass Steagall, from what I understand, was a pretty good Act. It clearly divided commercial banks and security trading firms. Sounds like a good idea. That said I don't believe I'm very knowledgeable about the issue - and there seems to be a lot of debate about whether it would have prevented the collapse we experienced anyway.

What bothered me about this video and its subsequent commentary was the complete lack of reason. It is all emotion - much of it violent - about a company and a man most of the posters seem to know little about.

Are you at all sympathetic to the view that there is too much concentration of capital in the financial sector, and not enough in the real economy? I think the compensation has gotten way out of whack in relation to the services they perform. I also think the securitization of debt was a horrible idea. What was wrong with glass steagall you know? What I'd like to see is a return to bankers loaning out deposits, and investors seeking out entrepreneurs. Instead, we have investors seeking to leverage systemic risk knowing full well they have a lifeline because the government can't go ahead and flush our life savings down the toilet now can it?

>> ^kevingrr:

What we are going to see shortly is traditional banks close up shop in low to low-mid income areas.
The banks offered "Free Checking" with the knowledge that people would overdraft and they would make fees on those overdrafts. There is no such thing as a free lunch or free banking. This was always part of every banks business plan. Caveat Emptor.
Those fees are now being restricted by Dodd-Frank. Therefore the banks can no longer turn a profit in many low/mid income neighborhoods. Banks are in business to make a profit and when they cannot make a profit they will close or downsize.
The solution is fairly simple. Banks will close and currency exchanges and payday loan shops will open. I don't think these businesses are preferable to banks. It an unintended consequence of the bill. It will hurt people it was meant to help.
I have free checking. I maintain a four to five figure balance and I have never been charged. I don't have everything I want, but I have more "things" in my life than I will ever need.
Chase lost $2 Billion dollars? Yea that's a bad call, but they have $2.26 Trillion in assets, $90 Billion in revenue, and $19 Billion in net income. I think they can absorb the loss.

Letting BoA fail won't do much of anything to prevent other banks from doing what they shouldn't be. And the simple fact is BoA or any corporation that size isn't monolithic. Some people had nothing to do with the fraud, and would lose their jobs.

Not to mention what it would do macroeconomically to the US.

>> ^bookface:

Those are all fine ideas but the time for them has passed. If our leaders had the integrity, ability, etc. to do as you suggest then there wouldn't be an Occupy movement. If our politicians, judges, and other civilian authorities were not wholly owned subsidiaries of the banking industry then I think the suggestions you make would have a good shot of happening.
>> ^heropsycho:
You can make an omelet without turning the gas up all the way for a few minutes and then light a match.
Instead of letting BoA fail, which likely would trigger another massive recession and undoing the economic rebound since the crash, why can't we...?
Institute regulations to prevent the fraud in the first place?
Massively commit to and reform regulatory bodies to be able to enforce these regulations?
Bring those responsible for fraud to justice?
Reinstitute Glass-Steagall?
There are a ton of things that can be done without letting a BoA fail with the economy still fragile.
>> ^bookface:
Can't make an omelet…
>> ^heropsycho:
I'm all about punishing those who perpetrated fraud, but I don't think he understands what the damage would be to the US and world economy as a result of Bank of America going under.

Those are all fine ideas but the time for them has passed. If our leaders had the integrity, ability, etc. to do as you suggest then there wouldn't be an Occupy movement. If our politicians, judges, and other civilian authorities were not wholly owned subsidiaries of the banking industry then I think the suggestions you make would have a good shot of happening.

>> ^heropsycho:

You can make an omelet without turning the gas up all the way for a few minutes and then light a match.
Instead of letting BoA fail, which likely would trigger another massive recession and undoing the economic rebound since the crash, why can't we...?
Institute regulations to prevent the fraud in the first place?
Massively commit to and reform regulatory bodies to be able to enforce these regulations?
Bring those responsible for fraud to justice?
Reinstitute Glass-Steagall?
There are a ton of things that can be done without letting a BoA fail with the economy still fragile.
>> ^bookface:
Can't make an omelet…
>> ^heropsycho:
I'm all about punishing those who perpetrated fraud, but I don't think he understands what the damage would be to the US and world economy as a result of Bank of America going under.

You can make an omelet without turning the gas up all the way for a few minutes and then light a match.

Instead of letting BoA fail, which likely would trigger another massive recession and undoing the economic rebound since the crash, why can't we...?

Institute regulations to prevent the fraud in the first place?

Massively commit to and reform regulatory bodies to be able to enforce these regulations?

Bring those responsible for fraud to justice?

Reinstitute Glass-Steagall?

There are a ton of things that can be done without letting a BoA fail with the economy still fragile.

>> ^bookface:

Can't make an omelet…
>> ^heropsycho:
I'm all about punishing those who perpetrated fraud, but I don't think he understands what the damage would be to the US and world economy as a result of Bank of America going under.

@renatojj

Glass Steagall is a necessary regulation that needs to be reinstated. Full stop.

I wish the term "conservative" was properly used. Today's so called conservatives are right wing extremists who have abandoned any sort of conservatism in favor of what is essentially a fascist state - a partnership between concentrated capital and government.
Secondly, this leaves the democrats off the hook. It was Clinton who ultimately signed off on de-regulating the banks and dispensing with Glass-Steagal - a law that prohibited banks from also being investment banks. A law put in place after the Great Depression
Clinton also ushered in a new era of "globalization" - policies that really only favored the wealthy. True globalization would allow free movement of money, goods, AND labor. However, the free movement of labor has been excluded, meaning that corporations country-shop for the cheapest labor- thereby speeding the process of exporting our industry.

>> ^lantern53:

lol
Anything else you want from the gov't?
I'll pass.


Reinstatement of Glass-Steagall would be a good start.

A bonus would be fewer simpleminded insinuations that all government regulation is a terrible thing.

i admire ron paul for voting what he espouses.he is fairly consistent and i can respect that BUT he is also a devout ayn rand fan and that should give anyone pause.
a unrestricted free market will not produce the pseudo financial utopia the chicago economists like friedman espouse,no matter how much they may wish it.
in fact,it will produce the exact opposite and there are many examples that people who believe in unrestricted markets seem to ignore.

in my opinion a few small but powerful changes could make a difference:
1.get rid of citizens united and make it so no private money can fund public elections.
2.put a cork on the ability of the congress and senate to profit from insider trading AND the ability to turn their political influence into a lucrative career as a lobbyist.make the job about public service and not pure enrichment at the detriment of those you were elected to represent.
3.re-instate glass steagall and other measures to separate commercial from investment banks.
4.return the phrase "for the public good" (removed in the early 70's) from the corporate charter and allow civil and class action suits against corporations who are discovered abusing communities by what ever means.and allow AG's to dissolve a corporation for gross un-compliance.if they are going to be deemed a "person" then they should be held to the same standard of community as the rest of us.

these are just some of the points ron paul does not address and i feel they are so vitally important and are a few reasons i cant support him.
his stance on military intervention and recinding the gross over-powering of the executive branch i totally agree with.
i also am not against his end-the-fed and other useless federal government agencies.either make them more effective or give that power to the states and some (DOD comes to mind) are so bloated and cumbersome that they have taken on an eerie "too big to fail" kind of character.

there is one thing that i find curious.
since ron paul is a free market prophet,why arent the corporations backing this man up with all their money and influence?
gingrich,romney and obama are getting all the wall street campaign money and media exposure.while ron paul is being marginalized.
maybe i am just being cynical but it seems to me that ron pauls "free market" talk may be perceived as a de-rigging of the game and our corporate masters cant have that.they paid big money to keep your business in the shitter.

if thats the case...well..good on him but i have to admit not being an expert on corporations nor economics.so i could be way off the mark.