House votes to roll back portions of Dodd-Frank
The bill passed with bipartisan support, 258-159. The beneficiaries will be smaller banks that claim to have been unduly hampered by the bill:
The bill stops far short of unwinding the toughened regulatory regime put in place to prevent the nation’s biggest banks from engaging in risky behavior, but it represents a substantial watering down of Obama-era rules governing a large swath of the banking system. The legislation will leave fewer than 10 big banks in the United States subject to stricter federal oversight, freeing thousands of banks with less than $250 billion in assets from a post-crisis crackdown that they have long complained is too onerous.
Republican lawmakers and the banking industry cheered a measure they said would help unshackle banks ”” and the economy ”” from regulatory burdens.
The Senate had already passed a version of this back in March, also with strong bipartisan support—16 Democrats and one Independent joined. That seems pretty rare nowadays for a bill that actually might mean something.
More here:
The bill, once signed, will be one of the most significant rewrites of financial industry rules in nearly a decade. It would lessen regulatory scrutiny on smaller banks, including regional banks like BB&T, SunTrust Banks, Key Bank, and American Express, as well as community banks and credit unions.
The bill’s proponents say it’s an example of bipartisanship at its best. But progressives say it goes too far and that it purports to help small community banks when its changes really benefit large financial institutions.
And the bill has exposed fault lines within the Democratic Party: Progressives and many 2020 presidential hopefuls in the Senate have lined up against the legislation, while some moderates and those from rural states support it and seek to hold it up as an example of their ability to work in a bipartisan manner.
Of course. The latter want to be re-elected in their more moderate districts and states, if possible. The progressives are appealing to an entirely different constituency.
Two hundred million in foreign, unmarked credits, and wealthy donors exceeding contribution limits. Foreign influence, collusion, and now spying at the twilight fringe of Democrats’ ambitions and bigotry (i.e. sanctimonious hypocrisy, although, technically… Pro-Choice).
The Wall Street Journal weighs in on the bill.
It’s largely about the sausage making. Departed Trump advisor Gary Cohn was mostly responsible for the bill’s much scaled back scope, and Sen. Crapo(R) signed onto that structure early in the hopes of pulling in a few Dems.
Sen. Sharrod Brown bailed out, but Heitkamp and Tester hung in. This caused a bit of a Dem. fracture, with Sen. E. Warren railing against Heitkamp and Tester in a fundraising email.
Rep. Hensarling pushed hard recently for the House to toughen the measure, but Trump, Crapo, and surprisingly a large group of bank lobbyists wanted to take the existing bill as is.
Any word from Senator Warren? Is she ok?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2014/03/09/the-fed-is-not-printing-money-its-doing-something-much-worse/
The fed reserve can decide at any time to make US dollar go hyperinflation, without the oversight of Congress or the US President.
That’s the Deep State for ya. A State truly has the power to create and back its own currency.
Meanwhile, they use smoke and mirror distractions with these “small banks” to keep America’s eye off the problem.
Ymar,
Your linked article was written in 2014. Has the predicted hyperinflation from QE come to pass?
Has the predicted hyperinflation from QE come to pass?
Are you asking have your predictions come to pass? No, they have not.
Ymar,
Do you feel the same way about predictions of AGW and it’s effects on humanity?
Tuvea Says:
May 24th, 2018 at 9:30 am
You’re going to have to be a little more specific in your elaboration.
I assume the Republicans in Congress screwed the job up and added features which will make the situation worse and not better. Actually segregating the capital markets and deposits and loan banking, inducing banks to divest themselves of foreign subsidiaries, placing inhibitions on banking consolidation, removing perverse incentives which promote the expansion of the secondary mortgage market and promote it’s domination by a couple of crony-capitalist pseudoprivate enterprises, and reducing permissible leverage among hedge funds were items not on the agenda.
Ymar…my prediction was textbook Keynes: monetary policy is ineffectual when one is in a liquidity trap, as we were in 2014.
It’s unlikely to create demand, thus unlikely to stimulate the economy, and thus unlikely to lead to hyperinflation…which isn’t to say we shouldn’t have tried it.