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.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
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 60sPeople 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.
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
Not really. Bolton is not a symptom; he's been spewing his noxious ideology for decades, and it's not anything to do with "authoritarianism".
He never had ability to do any real damage here because this administration is so laughably inept. They have no overriding ideology beyond the grift.
That shit is just ad-lib territory.
Why white ____ vote against ____
It all fits.
What does banks "intentionally tanking everything" entail?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
Doesn't like snitches.This one is weird. Usually his opinions are pretty obvious and make sense for his world view (that is obviously terrible, but he's an easy read). I don't get this one!
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.It's actually a great idea to codify a ton of laws that constrain executive power. Part of the problem now is that a lot of our "norms" aren't laws. It's a good idea to weaken the executive.
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.
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.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
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
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.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.
Until the 2022 midterms happen and Republicans cruise back into power over a snoozing Democratic administration and base.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.
This has happened a grand total of never.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
WTH with that clickbait tweet headline?
What Cramer said: "I've never heard anybody say, ' She's got to be stopped.'"
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.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
@NBCNews
NEW: As President Trump began losing confidence in John Bolton, who was fired today, he reached out to the man he had fired to give Bolton the job: H.R. McMaster. https://nbcnews.to/2UIcAWK
@NBCPolitics
In phone calls, President Trump has solicited McMaster's advice on various national security challenges, even asking McMaster who he should nominate to lead the Pentagon, aides says; he also told McMaster that he misses him. http://nbcnews.to/2UNe01X
In phone calls to McMaster — the first of which took place last fall — Trump told his second national security adviser that he misses him, according to two people familiar with the conversations. It's a sentiment the president has also expressed to White House aides, they said. Trump has solicited McMaster's advice on various national security challenges, even asking McMaster who he should nominate to lead the Pentagon, they said.
Trump's contacts with McMaster perhaps presaged his decision Tuesday to unceremoniously fire Bolton. They also marked a significant a remarkable shift for the president that is emblematic of how much Bolton fell out of favor since Trump welcomed him into the White House 17 months ago. At that time, Trump was barely speaking to McMaster and regularly did derogatory impressions of him in his absence, according to multiple current and former White House officials.
Like Bolton, McMaster's firing also transpired hastily and was announced publicly by the president on Twitter. Bolton later said he resigned, and was not fired. Trump's patience for Bolton ultimately wore thin; aides say Trump was close to firing Bolton earlier this year, even putting his name on a list of officials he'd like to get rid of before the end of the year, after which such moves might have a negative effect on his re-election campaign, officials said.
The president was angered by what he viewed as Bolton positioning himself in the news media as the decision-maker on key issues like Iran and Venezuela, the officials said, and it didn't help that Trump thought those policies weren't working.
Trump's phone calls to McMaster began in the fall of 2018, about six months after Bolton had taken the job. The most recent call that the people familiar with the conversations knew of was a few months ago.
In another conversation in late spring, when Trump was unsure about his choice of then-Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan to permanently hold the job, the president wanted to know what McMaster thought he should do. At the time, Trump was asking his advisers inside and outside the White House for alternatives to Shanahan, and he ultimately switched to nominate Mark Esper, who was confirmed by the Senate.
At least one of Trump's calls with McMaster focused on Iran, an issue over which Trump and Bolton have clashed because the president felt his national security adviser was pushing him into a military confrontation. Bolton has long been one of the Republican Party's leading voices on taking an aggressive approach on Iran, including advocating for regime change. He was instrumental in Trump's decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and has advocated positions that have at times put him at odds with Trump, who campaigned on ending, not starting, military conflicts overseas.
McMaster declined to comment.
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.Not the banks, but as I said, Germany did just that after World War I. See: "The Myths of Reparations" by Sally Marks.
Some lazy writers this season I tell ya.
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.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.
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.
Spot on.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.
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.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.
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.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.
NEW .. .Today, D.C. Republicans began to seriously sour on BISHOP's chances of keeping the seat red.
This is what makes the fact that democratic presidents have had better economies that republican ones that past however many decades so maddening-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.
Sounds like the GOP is not liking Bishop's chances and starting to lower expectations
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.
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
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" storiesOr they're lowering expectations so the win seems bigger. You can't put stock on what people say on Election Day
Is there some solid data showing most investment bankers are Republicans?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.
"I wasn't on the ticket, it has nothing to do with me (Trump)""stolen election"
"McCready was basically a Republican"
"North Carolina is a blue state anyway"
Is there some solid data showing most investment bankers are Republicans?
Or they're lowering expectations so the win seems bigger. You can't put stock on what people say on Election Day
Even their close shaves have been very unimpressive results for the GOP though.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
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'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.