-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
US PoliEra 2019 |OT7| It's happening
- Thread starter Ogodei
- Start date
- Status
I do sort of worry about the banks intentionally tanking everything if Bernie/Warren win just to turn people against them so they can get another compliant fascist in office as soon as possible
People said the banks and corporations would do that under Obama too, it didn't happen. They'd have way too much to lose by trying something like that.
Like, at the very least a Democratic president will be in office for four years. They're not going to bleed money for four years by choice.
Plus Warren/Sanders could just retaliate by going ham on new regulations so they can't sabotage the market. They will probably already do this.
WTH with that clickbait tweet headline?
What Cramer said: "I've never heard anybody say, ' She's got to be stopped.'"
Right but Obama despite getting reforms done never really threatened outright war against the banks and largest corporations like Bernie and Warren. We really haven't had people campaigning to fuck them up like they are since the 60s
I'd hope you're right about the next parts
Nah, that's why they have shareholders. The economy is largely autonomous unless you start putting stupid tarriffs in place.
Yes Warren regulations may hamper artificial speculation a bit but it's not going to kill yields for shareholders if the banks run themselves well. It isn't hard. They literally have all the money. And anyone with any brains realizes rampant speculation is what gets them into hot water in the first place.
American imperialism is highly authoritarian, just not on the homestead.
What does banks "intentionally tanking everything" entail?
Doesn't like snitches.
The best part is he got hosed on reading the taliban agreement which Trump just unilaterally ended anyway.
Wonder if the almost meeting with Iran was causing friction as well. Did he even last a year?
I used to agree with this (and I still kind of do), but Trump is revealing the problem to be deeper. Because Trump's not just busting norms; he's openly breaking the law at this point. But it doesn't matter, because the DoJ won't hold him accountable, Republicans won't hold him accountable because they benefit, and Democrats won't hold him accountable because they're cowards.
So while we do need to enshrine a lot of these norms into law, it's all for nothing if we don't address the incentives Congress has to NOT do its job.
Obama was way more chill with the financial status quo, at least in terms of where he most wished to expend his political capital.
Also, the German economy was intentionally yanked after World War I to get out from under the Versailles reparations, so it would hardly be the first time those with the economic levers tried to engineer a particular long-term political outcome by eating short-term misery.
That is one of the main reasons I think 4 years of Biden rebuilding while crushing the remnants of the Republican party. Then we have a clear open playing field where Warren can actually get her policies passed. In that hypothetical 2024 election there is effectively no Republican party for Executives to back.
It's true that Obama never campaigned on as bold of ideas as Warren or Sanders, though I still hold that any attempt by financial institutions to do something like this would be met with immediate backlash and give the new Democratic president all the ammunition they need to snuff them out.
Until the 2022 midterms happen and Republicans cruise back into power over a snoozing Democratic administration and base.
I don't trust Biden to take a different approach to midterm elections than Obama, whereas Warren absolutely will not cede any power to Republicans that she doesn't have to.
There's a certain level of inevitability there to the pendulum swinging back, but Obama let the DNC fester and rot and seemed to be very blase about the prospect of Republicans taking over the House (and later, the Senate) because he figured the fever would break eventually and they'd want to work with him.
It's unclear - I thought it initially sounded that way, but then the other guy started talking about it and Cramer says, "You're hearing that too?"
Banks have a lot to lose if everything tanks. Where do you think they get their money from? Fucking, checking fees? No, investments. Loans. Mortgages. If anyone has a vested interest in making sure shit doesn't go away, it's banks.
If anything, taxing the wealthy more might make them take out more loans, they'd be better for banks that way instead of the quickly abolished checking fees plus post office banking.
Not the banks, but as I said, Germany did just that after World War I. See: "The Myths of Reparations" by Sally Marks.
bb, pls come back - Trump to McMaster, probably
Sure, and there are super-specific circumstances there that led to the mess. It was a gigantic disaster but without those circumstances the odds of a repeat are really low. The closest thing we have to this nowadays is OPEC deliberately fucking with oil prices and stuff like targeting red state voters with retaliatory tariffs.
I would think (hope) that Biden would remember Obama's mistake of letting the previous administration off the hook and that the whole work across the aisle shtick is just electoral posturing. I just want Warren to have the best possible position where she can implement her major economic and corporate reforms which IMO is the most needed but also the most difficult to actually put into law.
I'm in the financial industry, and Warren's my top pick. But it never ceases to amaze me how people misunderstand the industry.
Banks are holding, essentially, everybody's money. If you have any money, you don't want the banks to fall. This is true for everybody, but especially people who work at banks and/or are shareholders of banks. A tremendous amount of a bank's worth is reputational. Bear Stearns went under due to a sudden lack of confidence by everyone else, effectively freezing them in place. Suddenly worth next to nothing. Not a commercial bank, but nobody who owned any stake in it wanted that to happen. People lost most of their net worth overnight. And the thing is, that the sins of BS were basically the year before, when they mismanaged mortgage-backed securities. A perfectly healthy and responsible wing of the business, the investment bank, went down with it.
So "banks would scuttle the ship to ensure a conservative president" is a completely naive point of view. And "kill the banks" ought to be "break up the banks" because for every greedy bad-actor part of a business, there are probably 3 other parts that aren't doing anything but their jobs.
What would *really* be effective, and isn't talked about, is instituting a system of *criminal* penalties for the individuals in the businesses, and stop relying on fines. Make the bad actors at risk. Really hard to prosecute, but a lot better than what we do now.
Banks are holding, essentially, everybody's money. If you have any money, you don't want the banks to fall. This is true for everybody, but especially people who work at banks and/or are shareholders of banks. A tremendous amount of a bank's worth is reputational. Bear Stearns went under due to a sudden lack of confidence by everyone else, effectively freezing them in place. Suddenly worth next to nothing. Not a commercial bank, but nobody who owned any stake in it wanted that to happen. People lost most of their net worth overnight. And the thing is, that the sins of BS were basically the year before, when they mismanaged mortgage-backed securities. A perfectly healthy and responsible wing of the business, the investment bank, went down with it.
So "banks would scuttle the ship to ensure a conservative president" is a completely naive point of view. And "kill the banks" ought to be "break up the banks" because for every greedy bad-actor part of a business, there are probably 3 other parts that aren't doing anything but their jobs.
What would *really* be effective, and isn't talked about, is instituting a system of *criminal* penalties for the individuals in the businesses, and stop relying on fines. Make the bad actors at risk. Really hard to prosecute, but a lot better than what we do now.
Gee. Maybe you shouldn't have fired him in the first place, dumbass. While we're at it, maybe you shouldn't be firing cabinet government personnel by way of Twitter.
I don't even think this needs to be intentional, though.
-Behaviors of economic actors, including professionals, are often a result of psychological process that are not entirely rational.
-If you perceive the economy to be performing well, you're more likely to invest, creating a spirit of optimism that may spread. Conversely, if you perceive the economy to be performing poorly, you're less likely to invest. (These are often self-fulfilling prophecies).
-We know from social science that people interpret the overall macroeconomic performance through a partisan lens. If someone of your party is in the White House, you have a rosier view than if the opposition party is in the White House, on average.
-Most investment bankers are Republicans
Therefore:
-Most investment bankers will be more optimistic and likely to invest during Republican administrations than not.
-The economy will do better under Republican presidencies, even if their policy is no better than their opponents' and even if there is no conspiracy by bankers to tank a Democratic presidency.
See, and Biden is actually the candidate I trust the least to effectively deal with anyone from Trump's administration (except for joke candidates like Tulsi). He seems to view Trump as the inherent problem, rather than a symptom of the broader problem with the GOP.
Warren can both return things to "normal" while also pursuing broad reform and change. I don't think those are inherently exclusive concepts. To most people a "normal" president can still be effective and influence change - if anything it's probably more important they stay off fucking Twitter.
This isn't even necessarily a good thing because tiny regional banks are a huge contributor to instability in the financial system. Having a national portfolio naturally insures against regional housing busts.
Sounds like the GOP is not liking Bishop's chances and starting to lower expectations
This is what makes the fact that democratic presidents have had better economies that republican ones that past however many decades so maddening
I have no doubt that Biden would let Trump off the hook after beating him in an election. If he thinks beating Trump will break the fever for the GOP and open a road to bipartisan comity, he would also think that prosecuting Trump for any number of crimes would immediately burn down that olive branch. Not to mention one administration prosecuting a former president for crimes would be far outside of the realm of established political normalcy that Biden wants to restore.
"stolen election"
"McCready was basically a Republican"
"North Carolina is a blue state anyway"
I think you mean "portfolio managers." Investment bankers, ironically, aren't investing. They are advising and doing mergers and acquisitions. I don't think they are overwhelmingly republican, though. Certainly a lot are, but they are also overwhelmingly in urban centers. But mostly, the people investing are people with money, financial people or not. They are going to invest *somewhere* no matter what, and where that is will depend on their outlook.
I don't want to break them up regionally (because you are right)-- I want to break them up by function. There's no reason for an investment bank, a commercial bank, an asset manager and a hedge fun all to be under one roof-- a lot of reasons for them not to be.
Or they're lowering expectations so the win seems bigger. You can't put stock on what people say on Election Day
yeah I was going to say, I've been burned too many times by these "Republicans are lowering expectations/sounding the alarms/distancing themselves from today's race" stories
Is there some solid data showing most investment bankers are Republicans?
"I wasn't on the ticket, it has nothing to do with me (Trump)"
Huh, you're absolutely right, I really should have looked that up.
"Investment banking" as a catch-all for all such jobs is 53-47 Republican. "Investment banker" is 51-49. Brokers and private investors lean strongly Republican, but there's a similar lean toward Democrats in Hedge Fund Managers and Investment Analysts. Most notably, venture capitalists are 63-37 Democrat, and it would make sense if they were the ones most impacted by the animal spirits optimism/pessmism thing.
Which is fascinating, but then we have to figure out why Kramer seems to not hesitate in assuming his co-workers will dislike Forma.
Even their close shaves have been very unimpressive results for the GOP though.
If Bishop wins by 1 point for example, that's obviously better than losing, but running 10 points behind Trump still isn't an ideal environment for them.
Yeah, I agree with this. Obviously banking/finance as an industry is important, and most people who work in the industry aren't the ones making the big decisions that fuck things up.
I also used to work in banking (just a branch teller, then cash ops away from the branches, nothing investment related) and have an econ degree. Warren has been my top choice for a good while now (I've got a bumper sticker and everything).
Wasn't one of Warren's first plans this campaign actually about exactly what your last paragraph says? A White Collar Crime bill?
As an investment banker, I did 0% of investing. It's amazing how people do not know what the job entails. I guess the name is a misnomer.
I generally don't think people in investment banking are largely more Republican than Democrat than most other jobs that are high paying. Hell, Jamie Dimon is a Democrat.
I also think that people within finance view Elizabeth Warren as significantly more aware of the financial industry and thus more dangerous than Bernie who couldn't even describe how he'd break up JPMorganChase give that was his a huge part of his platform.
That said, attacking the banks is an easy way to rally support. Going through with these reforms and break-ups, I don't see any candidate actually going through with any real success. Strengthening the regulations passed under Obama is all we really need.
I generally don't think people in investment banking are largely more Republican than Democrat than most other jobs that are high paying. Hell, Jamie Dimon is a Democrat.
I also think that people within finance view Elizabeth Warren as significantly more aware of the financial industry and thus more dangerous than Bernie who couldn't even describe how he'd break up JPMorganChase give that was his a huge part of his platform.
That said, attacking the banks is an easy way to rally support. Going through with these reforms and break-ups, I don't see any candidate actually going through with any real success. Strengthening the regulations passed under Obama is all we really need.
- Status