Slate "There Is Not a Single Good Reason to Deregulate Banks Right Now. Democrats Are Helping It

[NRaleighLiberal]

Happen Anyway"

https://slate.com/business/2018/03/there-is-no-good-reason-to-deregulate-the-banks.html

Just ten years after the financial crisis, Congress has decided that it’s time to start deregulating the banking industry again.

On Tuesday, a coalition of Republicans and moderate Democrats voted 67 to 32 to move along a bill loosening some of the key regulations Congress passed in 2010 to prevent another financial crisis. The bill’s Democratic supporters, such Virginia’s Mark Warner and Montana’s Jon Tester, claim they are simply trying to make “commonsense fixes” to the Dodd-Frank Act in order to free up credit unions and smaller banks from burdensome rules designed to prevent a Lehman Brothers-style collapse. But while that may be their goal, the legislation—which has been exhaustively and excellently covered by journalist David Dayen—would make it easier for community banks to hide wrongdoing like discriminatory lending, while leaving the financial system at least slightly more vulnerable to a disaster by freeing large regional banks from regulatory scrutiny. As written, there is also a chance it could end up easing restrictions on a pair of too-big-to fail giants, JPMorgan and Citibank—restrictions that were designed to keep them from leveraging up with too much debt.

But you don’t need to wade into the details of this bill to understand why it’s so infuriating. The bottom line is that there just isn’t any good reason to be deregulating finance in 2018.

The legislation’s Democratic backers have argued that Dodd-Frank went too far when it came to regulating community and regional banks, and that easing some rules will free up credit for rural areas and small businesses. As Warner put it in a statement, “The goal is simple: to help Main Street by rolling back unnecessary and burdensome regulations on credit unions and small community banks.” If Dodd-Frank was truly throttling the banking system with red tape, though, you would expect to see some signs that Americans were having trouble borrowing. But there simply aren’t any. There is no sign of a credit shortage in the Untied States—on Main Street or any other street.

snip


long article - worth reading - check the link above for the rest

[Autumn]

1. For Dems to even consider this after what we all know happended in 08 leaves me dumbfounded.

[HopeAgain]

2. This is the kind of thing that makes some Democrats

not that different than Republicans.

[Docreed2003]

3. It is incredible to me

That 67 Senators could agree on this but not on comprehensive immigration reform or sensible gun measures.

[KPN]

6. +1!

At the same time there are those who can present what seems a reasonable rationale. Seems like, that is, but for average everyday people as a whole who don't buy it.

[JDC]

8. Because they work for their donors.

Money in politics drives every dcision that they make. It's legalized bribery pure and simple.

[sharedvalues]

4. who needs to be called?

[earthshine]

5. Why are these Democrats referred to as "moderate"?

Perhaps they are just moderately in line with Democratic Party values?

[Igel]

7. Compare and contrast these two articles.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-trump-bank-loans-20170226-story.html

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2016/credit-availability-and-the-decline-in-mortgage-lending-to-minorities-after-the-housing-boom-20160929.html

A good law's consequence is reduced loan availability to those with less secure credit. Some of those are small businesses, I'm sure. But it disproportionately hits those with weaker credit scores, and that's disproportionately people of color.

[KG]

9. oh, bash, bash, bash.