chairman's reserve

time.com
House Panel Votes to Gut Dodd-Frank Law Enacted After the Financial Crisis
The law was enacted after the 2008 recession
By Associated Press

(WASHINGTON) — A House panel approved legislation Thursday that would gut much of the Dodd-Frank law enacted after the 2008 economic meltdown. The bill cleared the Republican-led House Financial Services Committee on a party-line vote of 34-26.
“I can’t do a good James Brown, but I feel good,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the normally reserved Republican chairman of the committee, referring to the singer often called the godfather of soul. Hensarling wrote much of the overhaul legislation.

latimes.com
Here's what's at stake as Trump moves to unravel Dodd-Frank
By James Rufus Koren

President Trump signed an executive order Friday that calls for his administration to review the landmark Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, with an eye toward revising or eliminating parts of the 2010 law.

An administration official told reporters that the law “in many respects was a piece of massive government overreach” and that some of the rules within the law, passed in the wake of last decade’s financial crisis, “may have even been unconstitutional.”


Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The administration official who previewed Friday’s executive order said the law had, among other things, created “new agencies that don’t actually protect consumers.” That’s a not-so-subtle swipe at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency created by the Dodd-Frank act that has been a strict enforcer of consumer protection laws and that has crafted a bevy of new rules that apply to mortgage lenders, banks, credit card companies and other financial firms.

The bureau’s rules have made it less attractive — though not illegal — for mortgage lenders to make some types of risky loans that went bad and sparked last decade’s financial crisis. The bureau also been working on rules that would prevent banks and other financial firms from blocking class-action lawsuits by consumers and would require payday lenders to do more underwriting.

The bureau and its director, Richard Cordray, have been targets of Republican lawmakers, who argue that the bureau has been overly aggressive in enforcing rules and that its power should be crimped. Trump advisor Gary Cohn suggested in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that Trump may seek to replace Cordray, though Cordray’s term doesn’t expire until the middle of next year.


Proprietary trading

Dodd-Frank put limits on the kind of bets banks can make on their own behalf — also called proprietary trading. (Proprietary trades in mortgage-backed securities led to huge losses for banks in the lead-up to the financial crisis.) Under those limits, often referred to as the Volcker Rule after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, banks also are not supposed to make investments in certain riskier asset classes.

The rule was meant to prevent banks from taking too much risk, though it’s been criticized for making it harder for banks to hold certain types of securities that customers might want to buy. JPMorgan Chase chief Jamie Dimon famously criticized the rule, saying regulators would need a psychiatrist to help determine whether a trade was proprietary.

(Continue Reading)

A top Fed official just delivered an unusual warning to Trump about plans to 'do a number' on financial-crisis rules

(Stanley Fischer.REUTERS/Yuri Gripas )
Stanley Fischer, the vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, on Friday delivered an unusually sharp warning to President Donald Trump and his plan to “do a number” on post-crisis reforms aimed at reining in Wall Street.

Fed officials usually go out of their way to not appear political, which makes the comments all the more startling. Fischer, a former Citigroup banker and respected policymaker who led the Bank of Israel for many years, appears truly concerned.

“We seem to have forgotten that we had a financial crisis, which was caused by behavior in the banking and other parts of the financial system, and it did enormous damage to this economy,” Fischer told CNBC’s Sara Eisen in the lobby of the International Monetary Fund, responding to a question about the potential rolling back of Dodd-Frank rules.

This happened just as the president was signing an executive order aimed at what he said was “reviewing” Dodd-Frank.

“Millions of people lost their jobs. Millions of people lost their houses,” Fischer said. “This was not a small-time, regular recession. This was huge, and it affected the rest of the world, and it affected, to some extent, our standing in the world as well. We should not forget that.

"The strength of the financial system is absolutely essential to the ability of the economy to continue to grow at a reasonable rate, and taking actions which remove the changes that were made to strengthen the structure of the financial system is very dangerous.”

Asked specifically about Trump’s vow to “do a number” on Dodd-Frank, Fischer shot back: “I’m not sure precisely what the president said and what a ‘number’ is, but there are aspects of Dodd-Frank, which if they were taken away would have very serious potential consequences for the economy — not immediately but when times get tough.”

What provisions is he most worried about? The ability of the Fed and other regulators to wind down large banks, many of which are still seen as too big to fail.

“I think it is very important that big banks be subject to the discipline of the possibility of going bankrupt. It is also very important that that discipline extends to not making those changes, the bankruptcy of a big bank, a huge shock and the source of crisis or damage to the overall economy,” Fischer said. “So we need the resolution mechanisms that have been put in place which will allow the authorities and the markets to wind up a big bank.”

Watch the exchange:

NOW WATCH: How the US could prevent a North Korean nuclear strike — according to a former Marine and cyberwarfare expert



More From Business Insider

nightshadezombie  asked:

Headcanon Midnight Theater: Mr. Zombie and I have been debating phasing out the penny for years. Canada began phasing it out in 2013, and it's going pretty well for them. They originally estimated Canada could save $11 mil a year but they haven't confirmed this yet. The US mint has been watching this closely. So anyhoo, who in the Barton Admin is pro-penny and who's against? Do they have fierce debates? Do they all hate it? Is Tony using the debate to troll the National Reserve Chairman?

Oh man. Things You Can’t Bring Up At State Dinners Anymore. 

Tony actually has a deeply entrenched pro-Penny agenda, but it’s all part of his shadowy master plan. He is in fact quite anti-Penny, but for now it serves his purposes to appear as though he supports the status quo. Steve, who is fiercely anti-Penny, finds Tony’s duplicity distasteful, but they’ve agreed to let this one go because if they start with pennies they’ll end in an all-out civil war and then nobody gets laid and it’s very sad. 

Maria is also anti-Penny and unlike Steve, who has to kind of keep his mouth shut about SOME things as the VP, she is totally free to express her anti-Penny sentiment. As a crusader for reproductive rights and an ardent gay-friendly intersectional feminist (so, so gay friendly, really as friendly as you can be to the gays, are you doing anything tonight after the rally, cutie?) she has been known to work sex ed, rape culture, institutionalized racism, and the perfidious penny all into a single speech. 

Clint….

It would be dishonest to say that he doesn’t get what the fuss is about. He gets it, he’s had the briefings, he’s read the reports, he’s heard from the Senate subcommittees. But he just can find it in himself to get that passionate about pennies. He will of course serve the pleasure of his constituencies, and if Steve gets a bill through congress to sunset the penny he’ll sign it into law, but he’s pretty sure Tony has a four-part plan to take down the penny so he’s just not going to worry about it. 

Bucky is pro-Penny. It is suspected that his pro-Penny stance is almost entirely intended to get Steve riled up, just because he can. If pennies were good enough for America in the 1930s, by god they’re good enough for America in the Barton Administration, where they don’t even have to make them out of steel anymore. 

Steve just gets incensed and ranty and goes and vents to (has explosive sex with) Tony, so Tony appreciates Bucky’s work in this arena. 

***

Okay kids, this has been great fun but I’m ending the headcanons for the night. If I didn’t get to yours, I’m very sorry! I’ve still got them in my inbox and may do a few more tomorrow depending on how I feel. Thanks to everyone for sending in asks, you were all brilliant with your requests and suggestions! 

7

The Age of Selfishness – A graphic look at Ayn Rand’s life, libertarianism, the financial crisis of 2008, and where the financial world is headed now

The Age of Selfishness: Ayn Rand, Morality, and the Financial Crisis
by Darryl Cunningham
Abrams ComicArts
2015, 240 pages, 5.5 x 8.3 x 1 inches
$13 Buy a copy on Amazon

Wow, this graphic history book brought my blood to a high boil, not a reaction I expected. Its title, The Age of Selfishness: Ayn Rand, Morality, and the Financial Crisis, led me to believe it was just a biography on Ayn Rand, the grandmother of modern libertarianism and author of cult college classics The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. And yes, the first third of the book  – “Part One: Ayn Rand” – (the book is divided into three sections) was all about Rand: her turbulent childhood during the Russian revolution, her immigration to the US, her quick rise to success as a Hollywood and book writer, and then her cult-like leadership in the pro-capitalist, or libertarian movement with devoted followers who included Alan Greenspan and a young couple whose relationship with her became intimate and complicated. If this first section was all there was, it would have been a fascinating enough book. But by the time it got to Rand’s death, I was only one-third of the way through the book.

“Part Two: The Crash” is when the heat shot up. This middle section of the book covers more of former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan’s life. It then connects Rand’s political philosophies to Greenspan’s views, and then Greenspan’s influence on American politics and the way America does business. It gets into the details of the shady practices that led up to the financial crisis of 2008 (grrr) and how crooked business on Wall Street was rewarding business for the individuals involved, who received high bonuses and promotions for bringing our banking system to its knees. Beware: you must have a thick skin to read this section.

Finally, the most fun section of the book, “Part Three: The Age of Selfishness,” covers the post-financial-crisis world, including the rise of the Tea Party and the way things sit right now in the banking world (same seats we were in before the peak of the financial crisis. In other words, fasten your seat belts!). The “fun” part of this section is when author and illustrator Darryl Cunningham presents us with research that dissects the minds, personality traits, and lifestyles (from clothing to housing decor) of both republicans and democrats, and shows how their brain processes work differently. Cunningham explains that both personality types are needed in society but the extremes of either camp can be dangerous. This is a well-researched, detail-packed book that I’ll need to read a few more times to fully digest. – Carla Sinclair

March 31, 2015

pennamerosie  asked:

Can you explain why you dislike Bernie Sanders please? I'm curious.

Bernie Sanders, the “self-proclaimed socialist” is pro-big business (as long as he likes them; he doesn’t even want to audit or shut down the Federal Reserve System). Sanders is also pro-military when it suits him:

During congressional deliberations over authorizing the first Gulf War, Sanders declared his support for sanctions, diplomatic pressure and even the use of US forces to “pressure” Iraq into submission, while stopping, along with most congressional Democrats, just short of voting for the actual war. This caveat was dropped in 1993, when Sanders voted for US intervention in Somalia. Sanders then voted for the NATO air war against Serbia in 1999.

Sander’s also supported NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 which left over 500 civilians dead, a stance which caused one of his staffers to resign in protest.

In 2006, he voted ‘Yea’ on legislation that made the remaining fourteen provisions of the Patriot Act permanent and extended the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct “roving wiretaps” and access certain business records through December 31, 2009. Also in 2006 (the year Sanders moved to the Senate), well-known socialist publication Socialist Workerconcluded that Bernie Sanders was “anything but” a socialist due to his long-time loyalties to the Democratic National Convention (a tie which remains to this day). Bernie is in bed with private interests. Just because he refused SuperPAC money doesn’t mean he refuses to accept private ‘donations’. He accepts millions of dollars from unions every campaign he runs, many of which are just as corrupt as the corporations for which they work.

Sanders also voted against the original legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security, but by 2006 he had joined the majority of Congress in passing continued funding of that agency.

Sanders supported the Israeli attack on Gaza last summer but thought the Israeli army was a little heavy-handed and ‘over-reacted’ with some of its actions like bombing schools being used as civilian shelters.

So Sanders might have opposed the Iraq war, but he voted yes to authorize military force in response to 9/11. He supported the invasion of Afghanistan and voted to fund the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. He supported Clinton’s Gulf build-up and sanctions against Iraq in the 90s. He supports National Guard troops in his home state. He supports imperialist veteran groups like the American Legion and the VFW and has received chauvinist awards from both organizations. He supports drone strikes and the use of “targeted killings” aka assassinations.

Contrary to popular belief, Bernie Sanders is not the only politician running for office who promotes LGBT rights, who opposes NSA surveillance, and who opposes for-profit interests’ influence in public affairs. I’m pretty sure Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul have uttered much of the same sentiment with varying degrees of passion.

It’s amazing how campaigns work, isn’t it? You stand in front of a podium in front of thousands of people and cameras and you just say whatever it is you know they want to hear come out of your mouth. Which, apparently, includes xenophobic “close the borders” rhetoric.

Just because the guy nominally states that he won’t accept “corporate money” doesn’t mean he isn’t out to swindle you. Hey may abstain from Super PACs, but I don’t recall Sanders promising to clean house by removing the director of each bureau and agency.

Come to think of it, he does not even plan to touch the Federal Reserve whose chairman he thinks should be “prepared to stand up to the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street” despite the fact that each prior chairman has had a lucrative history with Wall Street before and after their tenure.

The guy is so pro-establishment that real socialists are denouncing him left and right (as they have been for years).

I dislike Sanders for the same reason I think all on Capitol Hill are scumbags.

funnyolbastard-deactivated20170  asked:

From what I've seen bernie is the best candidate, why is he problematic?

Bernie Sanders, the “self-proclaimed socialist” is pro-big business (as long as he likes them; he doesn’t even want to audit or shut down the Federal Reserve System). Sanders is also pro-military when it suits him:

During congressional deliberations over authorizing the first Gulf War, Sanders declared his support for sanctions, diplomatic pressure and even the use of US forces to “pressure” Iraq into submission, while stopping, along with most congressional Democrats, just short of voting for the actual war. This caveat was dropped in 1993, when Sanders voted for US intervention in Somalia. Sanders then voted for the NATO air war against Serbia in 1999.

Sander’s also supported NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 which left over 500 civilians dead, a stance which caused one of his staffers to resign in protest.

In 2006, he voted ‘Yea’ on legislation that made the remaining fourteen provisions of the Patriot Act permanent and extended the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct “roving wiretaps” and access certain business records through December 31, 2009. Also in 2006 (the year Sanders moved to the Senate), well-known socialist publication Socialist Workerconcluded that Bernie Sanders was “anything but” a socialist due to his long-time loyalties to the Democratic National Convention (a tie which remains to this day). Bernie is in bed with private interests. Just because he refused SuperPAC money doesn’t mean he refuses to accept private ‘donations’. He accepts millions of dollars from unions every campaign he runs, many of which are just as corrupt as the corporations for which they work.

Sanders also voted against the original legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security, but by 2006 he had joined the majority of Congress in passing continued funding of that agency.

Sanders supported the Israeli attack on Gaza last summer but thought the Israeli army was a little heavy-handed and ‘over-reacted’ with some of its actions like bombing schools being used as civilian shelters.

So Sanders might have opposed the Iraq war, but he voted yes to authorize military force in response to 9/11. He supported the invasion of Afghanistan and voted to fund the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. He supported Clinton’s Gulf build-up and sanctions against Iraq in the 90s. He supports National Guard troops in his home state. He supports imperialist veteran groups like the American Legion and the VFW and has received chauvinist awards from both organizations. He supports drone strikes and the use of “targeted killings” aka assassinations.

Contrary to popular belief, Bernie Sanders is not the only politician running for office who promotes LGBT rights, who opposes NSA surveillance, and who opposes for-profit interests’ influence in public affairs. I’m pretty sure Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul have uttered much of the same sentiment with varying degrees of passion.

It’s amazing how campaigns work, isn’t it? You stand in front of a podium in front of thousands of people and cameras and you just say whatever it is you know they want to hear come out of your mouth. Which, apparently, includes xenophobic “close the borders” rhetoric.

Just because the guy nominally states that he won’t accept “corporate money” doesn’t mean he isn’t out to swindle you. Hey may abstain from Super PACs, but I don’t recall Sanders promising to clean house by removing the director of each bureau and agency.

Come to think of it, he does not even plan to touch the Federal Reserve whose chairman he thinks should be “prepared to stand up to the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street” despite the fact that each prior chairman has had a lucrative history with Wall Street before and after their tenure.

The guy is so pro-establishment that real socialists are denouncing him left and right (as they have been for years).

FEEL THE BERN THOUGH YA KNOW? I am sure he won’t facilitate the murder of nearly as many innocents as Hillary Clinton would and certainly not as many as the Republicans who value human life slightly less than the Democrats :^)

anonymous asked:

Hello, I just wanted to know why you don't like Bernie Sanders? He seems like the best option for me.

Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed “socialist” is pro-big business (as long as he likes them; he doesn’t even want to audit or shut down the Federal Reserve System). Sanders is also pro-military when it suits him:

During congressional deliberations over authorizing the first Gulf War, Sanders declared his support for sanctions, diplomatic pressure and even the use of US forces to “pressure” Iraq into submission, while stopping, along with most congressional Democrats, just short of voting for the actual war. This caveat was dropped in 1993, when Sanders voted for US intervention in Somalia. Sanders then voted for the NATO air war against Serbia in 1999.

Sander’s also supported NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 which left over 500 civilians dead, a stance which caused one of his staffers to resign in protest.

In 2006, he supported the extension authority to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct “roving wiretaps” and access certain business records through December 31, 2009. Also in 2006 (the year Sanders moved to the Senate), well-known socialist publication Socialist Worker concluded that Bernie Sanders was “anything but” a socialist due to his long-time loyalties to the Democratic National Convention (a tie which remains to this day). Bernie is in bed with private interests. Just because he refused Super PAC money doesn’t mean he refuses to accept private ‘donations’. He accepts millions of dollars from unions every campaign he runs, many of which are just as corrupt as the corporations for which they work.

Sanders also voted against the original legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security, but by 2006 he had joined the majority of Congress in passing continued funding of that agency.

Sanders supported the Israeli attack on Gaza last summer but thought the Israeli army was a little heavy-handed and ‘over-reacted’ with some of its actions like bombing schools being used as civilian shelters.

So Sanders might have opposed the Iraq war, but he voted yes to authorize military force in response to 9/11. He supported the invasion of Afghanistan and voted to fund the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. He supported Clinton’s Gulf build-up and sanctions against Iraq in the 90s. He supports National Guard troops in his home state. He supports imperialist veteran groups like the American Legion and the VFW and has received chauvinist awards from both organizations. He supports drone strikes and the use of “targeted killings” aka assassinations.

“But Bernie said he won’t go to war!” and despite what a politician says, actions speak louder than words – the facts demonstrate that what Bernie wishes or expresses is a lot different than what he winds up supporting. No precedent exists from either Sanders or the Oval Office to believe that an elected candidate will not go to war. Supporting “low intensity conflict” doesn’t make it any less of a war.

Ron Jacobs of Counter Punch wrote on, 3/31/2003:

“For those of us with a memory longer than the average US news reporter, we can remember Bernie’s staunch support for Clinton’s 100-day bombing of Yugoslavia and Kosovo in 1999. I served as a support person for a dozen or so Vermonters who sat-in in his Burlington office a couple weeks into that war. Not only did Sanders refuse to talk with us via telephone (unlike his Vermont counterparts in the Senate-Leahy and Jeffords), he had his staff call the local police to arrest those who refused to leave until Sanders spoke with them. The following week Sanders held a town hall meeting in Montpelier, VT., where he surrounded himself with sympathetic war supporters and one university professor who opposed the war and Bernie’s support for it. During the question and answer part of the meeting, Sanders yelled at two of the audience’s most vocal opponents to his position and told them to leave if they didn’t like what he had to say.”

Contrary to popular belief, Bernie Sanders is not the only politician running for office who promotes LGBT rights, who opposes NSA surveillance, and who opposes for-profit interests’ influence in public affairs. I’m pretty sure Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul have uttered much of the same sentiment with varying degrees of passion.

Even if Sanders were the only candidate to support LGBTQ issues (he’s not), there is not a single bill in Congress threatening to curtail the rights – specifically – from anyone within the LGBTQ community or minorities. However, there are plenty of laws supported by Sanders which do curtail civil liberties for all Americans (including the USA FREEDOM Act which he co-sponsored). Sanders has an extensive history of supporting the expansion of the ‘Security State’; he not only supported the creation of the Director of National Intelligence, but also voted ‘Yea’ to continue the collection of intelligence without civil oversight (suggesting that the state has a right to keep secrets from the public). 

It’s amazing how campaigns work, isn’t it? You stand in front of a podium in front of thousands of people and cameras and you just say whatever it is you know they want to hear come out of your mouth. Which, apparently, includes xenophobic “close the borders” rhetoric.

Just because the guy nominally states that he won’t accept “corporate money” doesn’t mean he isn’t out to swindle you. Hey may abstain from Super PACs, but I don’t recall Sanders promising to clean house by removing the director of each bureau and agency.

Come to think of it, he does not even plan to touch the Federal Reserve whose chairman he thinks should be “prepared to stand up to the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street” despite the fact that each prior chairman has had a lucrative history with Wall Street before and after their tenure.

The guy is so pro-establishment that real socialists are denouncing him left and right (as they have been for years).

Bernie “anti-big money” Sanders is now under the direct sway of billionaire George Soros, who has to-date contributed $33 million dollars to the Black Lives Matter organization. After hiring one of those on the payroll, Symone Sanders, to craft a ‘racial justice’ platform, the only solutions he has to offer involve the same Federal government perpetuating the abuses against black Americans (et al.).

It is evident from Sanders’ newly-adopted platforms that the organizational leaders within the BLM hierarchy have no interest in curtailing the powers of the Federal government over black Americans; rather, their interests lay in consolidating those powers into the hands of BLM-approved bureaucrats. This is the same Federal government which continues to actively monitor the movement’s leadership.