2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumScary: Larry Fink would Be Hillary's Treasury Secy: Advocates Privatizing Soc Security
Larry Fink and His BlackRock Team Poised to Take Over Hillary Clintons Treasury DepartmentBlackRock is far from a household name, but it is the largest asset management firm in the world, controlling $4.6 trillion in investor funds about a trillion dollars more than the annual federal budget, and five times the assets of Goldman Sachs.
And Larry Fink, BlackRocks CEO, has assembled a veritable shadow government full of former Treasury Department officials at his company.
Fink has made clear his desire to become Treasury Secretary someday. ......his dream (to be) in a future Clinton administration.
And his priorities appear to be so in sync with Clintons that its not entirely clear who shares whose agenda.
Clinton, for her part, has refused to rule out a Treasury Secretary drawn from Wall Street.
snip
Kendrick Wilson, a vice chairman at BlackRock since 2010 who has ties to Goldman Sachs, Lazard, and the Treasury Department. He advised Treasury while it managed the financial crisis and its fallout in 2008 and 2009, before coming to BlackRock. At Treasury, Wilson brought his experience advising financial institutions to carry out hastily arranged crisis-era deals, like the merger of Bank of America and failed subprime lender Countrywide.
snip
Its worth considering how Finks recent experiences might inform his approach at Treasury. Asset management firms invest pools of money into securities on behalf of their clients, which in BlackRocks case include 94 of the Fortune 100. They dont issue securities themselves; they just buy stuff.
snip
But they are embedded in the broader financial system as voracious buyers of securities. For example, BlackRock holds major share amounts in nearly every mega-bank, takes funds from scores of Wall Street investors, and manages a majority of the federal governments bailout programs. They may not create the risk, but they own a lot of it. Fink, who co-created the mortgage-backed security while a trader at First Boston in the 1980s, is a longtime respected figure on Wall Street; Geithner reportedly used him as a conduit between Treasury and the financial industry.
He also knows how to work the levers of power to achieve his ends.
snip
But Fink and BlackRock pushed hard to successfully resist the designation of asset managers as systemically important financial institutions (or SIFIs), which would be subject to additional regulation like larger capital requirements.
Fink also opposes efforts to reinstitute the Glass-Steagall firewall between investment and commercial banks, as does Clinton.
In fact, Finks views on Wall Street are so similar to Clintons that its hard to see that as a coincidence. Most notably, Clintons financial reform plan is mute when it comes to regulating asset management firms as SIFIs.
Fink has in recent months stressed an end to short-termism in the financial markets. For example, he wants to limit share buybacks that pump up stock prices, and encourage investors to hold stock longer, to focus on long-term corporate performance. Clinton has mirrored this language to such a degree that the New York Times Andrew Ross Sorkin suggested that Clinton could have been channeling Laurence D. Fink.
While the call to end short-termism is in some ways laudable, in Finks case it certainly reflects his self-interest. Clintons tax plan, for example, would keep capital gains rates higher for short-term holdings and decrease the rate for investors who hold assets over five years. Because BlackRock buys and holds most of its investments, any policy favoring long-term strategies in the markets would improve the firms bottom line.
Victor Fleischer, a leading tax lawyer and professor at the University of San Diego, questioned Clintons embrace of the short-termism argument in the New York Times earlier this month, saying it would do little to address top-end income inequality, since plenty of wealthy people buy and hold.
And Fleischer explicitly worries that the short-termism idea originated from Fink. I find it hard to shake the feeling that at the end of the day, in a Clinton administration, it would be Larry Fink, not the technocrats, calling the shots, Fleischer wrote.
Fink has also promoted the privatization of Social Security, while mocking the idea of retiring at 65, which is easy for a business executive who sits at a desk all day to say, rather than working on an assembly line or as a waiter.
Fink owes his initial backing at BlackRock to Pete Peterson, the former commerce secretary who has been at the forefront of the campaign to cut or privatize Social Security. He sat on the steering committee of the Campaign to Fix the Debt, a stalking horse for Petersons ideas.
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/02/larry-fink-and-his-blackrock-team-poised-to-take-over-hillary-clintons-treasury-department/
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)there's widespread vested interest in preserving the status quo from all parts of society and they cleverly use
the language of the so-called radical left to advance their agenda
Lorien
(31,935 posts)I'll check it out!
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)chapdrum
(930 posts)I'd make that "...so little difference to most people."
It's down to mainstream media to publicize this, but patriots that they've proven themselves to be, chances are that this too shall pass.
I've provided a link to Peterson's foundation, for the HRC supporters dismissing the importance of this danger. But of course, it's gone unacknowledged.
Democracy and fair play: That's for the little people.
onecaliberal
(32,759 posts)chapdrum
(930 posts)sorry if it was unclear.
Lorien
(31,935 posts)downright painful, but Bushbots did it for years, so maybe we shouldn't be surprised. I swear, if Hillary suddenly stated that she wanted to nuke the planet to bring about the second coming, every Hillary fan here would suddenly become a starry eyed born again. It's complete insanity!
Response to amborin (Original post)
Post removed
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Not clever, not funny -- just snide and silly.
gregcrawford
(2,382 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 3, 2016, 03:12 PM - Edit history (1)
... more than just a little racist. I have ZERO patience with that shit. There was a reply by Skinner to a comment on just that very subject not long ago, referencing an increase in racially charged comments, though he declined to mention a particular group.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I never saw or heard "racially charged" before that. Anyway, here are the results, only because I cannot post them as a reply to the hidden post and I believe in posting jury results for transparency:
Thu Mar 3, 2016, 02:23 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
bernie will make
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1404073
This is racist, hiking about Sen. Sanders nominating three AAs who support him in order to mock them.
JURY RESULTS
Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: You cannot be serious. HIDE. Consider forwarding to MIRT or the Administrators.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Since no white person, including Susan Sarandon, is named, I tend to agree with the alerter that race is the poster's issue.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: to stupid to bother with
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a stupid post, but I think calling this post racist is bullshit. For the Sanders supporter who no doubt alerted it, I think you'd be more sensitive to false cries of racism used for political purposes.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alerter.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation needed. What do you want to bet this person is not a Democrat.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Yes, looking down their noses at Sanders' supporters is really all they have...
....because there can be no discussion about issues... or fathoming the conflicts of interest.
I'm sure we might get an "LOL " soon. That always wins the argument for them.
elljay
(1,178 posts)Do you have some evidence to show that Hillary will NOT appoint such a person?
GoneOffShore
(17,336 posts)You might want to delete this.
It's not only racist but it doesn't address the fact of Larry Fink and Hilary being very cozy.
djean111
(14,255 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)i read Larry Flint
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)I've been familiar with this scumbag for years.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)is going to be a disaster. why people turn a blind eye to Clinton's economics and her foreign policy is dumbfounding. i get those who only get the teevee version of Hillary, but on DU? i.do.not.understand.it.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)She could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and they would still support her.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Completely agreed.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Yes, some Hillary supporters appear to be like this, but most of them are not. Where are those people? They are afraid to post here because of all the Bernie supporters who are just like this. And no, not all Bernie supporters are like this either. We just happen to be the majority here, so there are more extremists to see.
It's not pretty, no matter who does it.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)but I haven't seen them.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Obviously you don't agree, and that is your right.
I don't know what else you can do when somebody who says they're a Democrat doesn't have any issue with their candidate taking tens of millions of dollars from corporate interests, pursuing a neocon foreign policy, supporting trade deals, etc.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)The comment I called you on had nothing to do with issues. It was just nasty and untrue.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)You might not be aware, but Trump said a month or two ago that he could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and his supporters would stay with him. It was a way of expressing that they were with him no matter what.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)But to say Hillary supporters that they are blind and unthinking enough (loyal) to follow Hillary no matter what, is not fair or civil. Are they any more committed to her than Bernie supporters are to him?
And since when is being loyal to someone a "campaign issue"?
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)- making more for one hour speeches to corporate interests than she made in a year as a U.S. Senator or Secretary of State?
- her flip flops on trade deals?
- her being against a single payer healthcare plan because it is "unrealistic" even though every other advanced country in the world has one?
- her strong ties to Wall Street?
- her vote for the Iraq War and neocon record as Secretary of State?
- her unwillingness to make the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street public?
Trump supporters say they are conservative, but when videos pop up of him being pro choice, for a single payer healthcare system, for higher taxes on the rich, all positions they would be against if somebody else espoused them, they just ignore it or change the subject. Just as Hillary supporters ignore or change the subject whenever any of the issues I reference above (and many others) come up.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Are you doing any good here by attacking Hillary supporters? Wouldn't it be more effective if you actually posted something about the issues you just listed?
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)We Bernie supporters talk amongst ourselves about them.
olddots
(10,237 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I type dyslexic all the time.* On! I will ton do that.
Sigh. It's wearing.
*Case in point: I just corrected "time" from "tiem."
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)when their Social Security disappears. It's a diabolical and deceitful sham on
voters, ALL voters, but esp. some of our most vulnerable ones.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)And they would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)this smear.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)It was a desperately close run thing. On the account of members of Clintons secret White House team, mandated to map out the privatization path for Social Security, they had got as far down the road as fine-tuning the account numbers for Social Security accounts now released to the captious mercies of Wall Street. But in 1998 the Lewinsky scandal burst upon the President, and as the months sped by and impeachment swelled from a remote specter to a looming reality, Clintons polls told him that his only hope was to nourish the widespread popular dislike for the hoity-toity elites intoning Clintons death warrant.
In an instant Clinton spun on the dime and became Social Securitys mighty champion, coining the slogan Save Social Security First.
Team Clinton spinning on a dime -- so characteristic
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)and that's all you've got.
I asked for evidence, not hysterical opining.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Are sites that whore for Mrs. Clinton.
You people are beyond pathetic.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)outed yourself as that. "You people"
amborin
(16,631 posts)hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)But if you read Hillary's web site it pretty much rules out privatizing SS.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)facts. That's really all we ask.
And I promise to do the same.
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)Since you butted rudely into a comment merely to make a gratuitous snark, buh-bye!
Phlem
(6,323 posts)website so I can track the performance.
PS. She's been caught lying abundantly even just through this election cycle but because it's on her website that means it's true?
I've been paying attention to her and Bill even before I became a member here in DU in 2005.
I don't trust a thing she says.
Good luck with the election! I hope your pick makes it.
LiberalArkie
(15,703 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Especially after she gave the Pete Petersen dogwhistle in the first debate.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)and are continuing to repeat it - Faux Noise style.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)Hillary, anything goes.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)This needs to end soon.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)season on the strongest Democratic candidate since Prez O. She can take it. But she shouldn't have to take the GOPer-like smears here on DU.
The smearers are getting away with political murder - on a Democratic website. IMO, this should NOT be tolerated.
But MO apparently counts for little. If I supported the other candidate, MO would likely be venerated. And even if I did support the other candidate, I would still not be tearing Hillary down in GOPer-like ways.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Kill the messenger and ignore historical facts and current facts.
Bill was clearly breaking the law yesterday, but we need to ream Bernie Sanders supporters.
jalan48
(13,836 posts)blondie58
(2,570 posts)NO!!!
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)Things must really be getting desperate to be floating this B***S*** so liberally.
chapdrum
(930 posts)with your sober elevation, it'll be too late.
You could do some research.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)But as a lawyer, I actually rely on facts, not on hysterical innuendo.
You do realize that there is a whole process in place for nominating a Sec'y of the Treasury, endless vetting, and a Senate vote to confirm. The likelihood of the scenario described here ever taking place is nil.
But it is one of the post-Hillary Super Tuesday wins smears against her. This article or a variation of it have been posted several times already and will likely continue to be posted ad nauseam. We seem to have our own Faux Noise contingent on DU.
amborin
(16,631 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)chapdrum
(930 posts)"...hysterical innuendo." However, given the high stakes for the little people, it's understandable that there might be at least some rationally expressed concern.
Of course I'm aware of the process.
For her approval of TPP alone, she is a danger to our democracy.
Better stop there before I get hysterical.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)PERHAPS it might be challenged (and the GOP might challenge anyone by default). But perhaps not.
And the close ties are real.
So it is not a far-fetched conspiracy. Just a possibility.
Or someone worse.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 3, 2016, 05:18 PM - Edit history (1)
selective reason with hard historical facts and even facts from yesterday.
I don't hear any of them agreeing with the fact the Bill broke the law yesterday, it's all just about smearing Bernie Sanders and his supporters.
I've argued with way too many of them and they have absolutely nothing, just incoherent babble.
Critical thinking does not exist in that bubble.
Ligyron
(7,615 posts)more and more lately...
on edit: kick and rec
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Much has been made about Larry Finks recent call to ditch giving out quarterly guidance to shareholders and instead focus on the long-term. In a letter this week to the CEOs of the S&P 500 and a number of large European companies, the BlackRock chief executive implored executives to focus more on the long-term and ignore activist shareholders and others looking for a quick boost to shares. This is a message that Fink has said before. That was the key message of his letter to CEOs last year.
But this year, Fink also included a message for Washington, saying it was just as much to blame for short-termism as Wall Street. In Washington, Fink said long-term is often defined as the next election cycle, an attitude that is eroding the economic foundations of the country. Specifically, Fink advocated for extending the definition of long-term capital gains to at least three years, and gradually dropping the taxes you have to pay on such income after that.
Finks tax proposal mirrors something that Hillary Clinton has advocated for recently. And Clinton has echoed Finks views on short-termism. Thats raised talk on Wall Street and in Washington that Fink may be angling for the job of Treasury Secretary should Clinton win the presidency.
Fink has been a prominent Democratic donor, though there is no record of him directly donating to the Clinton campaign, and he is said to be close to President Obama.
But Jared Seiberg a managing director at Guggenheim Securities Washington Research Group, said that Finks name has regularly come up for the Treasury Secretary role. Fink is a natural choice for any Democrat, says Seiberg. He has the advantage of coming from an asset manager rather than a Wall Street bank...............
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)has a screw loose OR an agenda.
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)I really don't need any more reasons.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)LongTomH
(8,636 posts)This needs to be kept kicked up!
Tanuki
(14,913 posts)Clinton has never given the slightest indication that she would appoint Larry Fink. As the article itself says "Fink has made clear his desire to become Treasury Secretary someday. ......his dream (to be) in a future Clinton administration" So? People have all kinds of dreams to be players of one kind or another. To pretend that this has any likelihood of becoming a reality is extremely dishonest and reflects poorly on you, not to mention your candidate. I hope this is just you bringing your own crapola here and doesn't have Tad Devine's fingerprints on it. I have always given Sanders high marks for personal integrity, but the frequency of this sort of baseless smearing makes me wonder increasingly if he is a lot more cynical than I ever thought.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)Beartracks
(12,793 posts).... ought NOT to be a Wall Street executive?
Those were the days, eh?
===============
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)and Hillary wants to continue his plans.....
She CANNOT be Trusted
onenote
(42,525 posts)I'd also like the same information for Sanders.
You seem to have some inside information.
Or is your definitive statement just a bunch of speculation?
zentrum
(9,865 posts)
dangerous when Democrats do these kinds of things, than when Republicans do. When Democrats undermine their own core identity programs, it makes it seem more legitimate to dismantle them.
Maybe this was the wink-wink offered to Wall Street in her speeches. That she would help pour the enormous retirement fund of SS, which they have been salivating over for years, to the investment class.
This is like Reagan. Moving our middle and working class money ever upward for redistribution to a handful of the richest.
Is this really what her supporters want? A loss of their security in old age, that they paid for all their lives? Is this supposed to be our choiceReagan vs. Trump?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)turbinetree
(24,683 posts)because a lot of these oligarchs were sitting in that room having there bagel and cheese for a fee, on what she was and what her agenda is all about-----------------------that's pretty simple........................
You can run but you can't hide, and she does have a lot of connections to this firm--------------------that is a fact
https://theintercept.com/2015/10/21/clinton-takes-her-advisers-side-attacking-big-banks-but-not-blackrock/
http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clinton-goes-back-to-well-hits-up-financial-industry-for-fundraisers/
Honk-----------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Nedsdag
(2,437 posts)Be careful what you wish for.
dcbuckeye
(79 posts)Clinton is not an advocate of privatizing SS, so she's certainly not going to let her Treas Sec do it.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)of this potentially Dangerous situation.
The Fed was created By government but does not answer to the government - as I understand it. Policy decisions are made by their Own Board of Governors and they are NOT Answerable to POTUS/Congress. Congress does have oversight authority regarding their activities and may alter their responsibilities......not comforting At All. The FED is virtually Independent.
So, if this is true-just what would POTUS HRC do about it besides shrug and tell Us it is out of her control??????
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)pa28
(6,145 posts)Like the old saying in the Reagan administration went: "personnel is policy".
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)nolabear
(41,930 posts)But don't let that stop you from putting up speculation as if it's fact.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Yet more proof that the vast majority of Sanders' support is faith-based, not evidenced-based.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Whatev.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Can't believe someone voted to hide.
Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Fri Mar 4, 2016, 12:44 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Scary: Larry Fink would Be Hillary's Treasury Secy: Advocates Privatizing Soc Security
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511403976
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This post is literally false, and seems to be a pattern from this poster who makes up things that the links they post don't support.
Please hide this disruptive disinformation campaign.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Mar 4, 2016, 12:54 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The link seems fine, the story seems fine, and the title of the thread is at worst a mild assumption. Please don't just alert on things you don't like.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why not respond with your argument and the links to back up your claims...Hide denied
This seems like alert stalking.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Get a grip, BS fan.. stop posting made up stuff.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.