Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

Wasn't it Slick Willy's treasury sec Ron Rubin and Larry Sommers that gutted Glass-Steigel?

 

Glass-Steagall involved banking. Yes, it was Clinton. Does not take anything from the fact that Reagan introduced the ideas that anti-trust laws were bad.

[Al_U_Card]

Glass-Steagall involved banking. Yes, it was Clinton. Does not take anything from the fact that Reagan introduced the ideas that anti-trust laws were bad.

Some may well be but generally history bears out the value of strictly limiting corporate overreach. Now if only they would stop being "persons" it would be a good step in the right direction.

[Winstonm]

We find ourselves trapped between a rock and a hard place:

 

Yahoo.

 

When President Trump announced a new ban on transgender people serving in the military late Friday, it was somewhat of a surprise — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis had reportedly recommended in February that Trump allow transgender people to serve. It turns out that Vice President Pence and some of the country’s most prominent anti-LGBTQ activists had a role in reversing the outcome, which explains why the report explaining the decision is rife with anti-trans junk science. Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern reported Friday night that, according to multiple sources, Pence played “a leading role” in creating the report, along with Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation, which has been dubbed “Trump’s favorite think tank,” and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (FRC), an anti-LGBTQ hate group. ...

 

Pence - the closet VP

[barmar]

I really like that article. It's not a solution, not even close, but for one thing he seems to share my view of what's important. Also he is trying to get at what it is exactly that really bothers us about the FB problem. Hugeness is a problem. Really we have known this since the monopolies of the nineteenth century. It's not that they didn't do something good, they did. Railroads got built. But they become a law onto themselves. I mentioned earlier about the girl I dated using her courthouse job to look up my IQ. But some teenage girl looking up my IQ is different from huge corporations gathering and selling data about me, and national political groups using that data to send us selected information of doubtful accuracy to get us fired up. It's just different. Again going back to my high school days, there was to be a special ballot to increase funding for the schools. We were given supportive propaganda to take home to our parents. As a prank, some friends and I wrote up some counter-propaganda, broke into the school and put fliers in the teacher's mailboxes with a note to distribute this to the students. Of course they did so. Ok, not good. But again the difference in scale and sophistication, and even the difference in intent, we were just having teenage fun, matters.

A problem with trying to prevent things like this is that you can easily throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

I read in this month's Scientific American about a study that showed some promise in predicting flu outbreaks based on analyzing Twitter posts. Something like this is clearly a Good Thing. But how do you distinguish the good guys from the bad guys when deciding whether social media companies can share their data? Do we even want the government making this decision? They'd undoubtedly classify themselves as "good", but that might allow law enforcement to analyze people's social media to look for indicators of future crimes, a la "Minority Report".

 

I suspect FB actually thought that Cambridge Analytica was doing this kind of useful sociology research on the data -- how could they know that the company was actually an agent of the Trump campaign? But admitting it now would just sound self-serving -- a sincere-sounding mea culpa by Zuckerberg is better PR than trying to disavow any fault.

[y66]

Again going back to my high school days, there was to be a special ballot to increase funding for the schools. We were given supportive propaganda to take home to our parents. As a prank, some friends and I wrote up some counter-propaganda, broke into the school and put fliers in the teacher's mailboxes with a note to distribute this to the students. Of course they did so. Ok, not good. But again the difference in scale and sophistication, and even the difference in intent, we were just having teenage fun, matters.

That's an impressive prank for someone who grew up before the word hacker was first used in print in 1963 (according to OED).

[Winstonm]

Well, Don,

another fine mess you've gotten us into.

[RedSpawn]

Glass-Steagall involved banking. Yes, it was Clinton. Does not take anything from the fact that Reagan introduced the ideas that anti-trust laws were bad.

I'm thinking it's Richard Rubin's 25 years at Goldman Sachs that clouded his judgment about suggesting that derivatives NOT be regulated by the federal government. He was more worried about transaction costs and keeping the banking lobbyists happy than protecting our markets from unbridled greed and corruption.

 

He served the moneyed interests of Wall Street and provided horrible advice to Clinton that led to the Glass-Steagall repeal and the rise of Big Vegas-style risk taking banking conglomerates that laid the groundwork for the housing bubble boom and bust.

[Winstonm]

I'm thinking it's Richard Rubin's 25 years at Goldman Sachs that clouded his judgment about suggesting that derivatives NOT be regulated by the federal government. He was more worried about transaction costs and keeping the banking lobbyists happy than protecting our markets from unbridled greed and corruption.

 

He served the moneyed interests of Wall Street and provided horrible advice to Clinton that led to the Glass-Steagall repeal and the rise of Big Vegas-style risk taking banking conglomerates that laid the groundwork for the housing bubble boom and bust.

 

Isn't it funny the pivot away from Reagan and anti-trust laws to Clinton and banking regulations. :o

[y66]

Here's Tim Cook's take on the need for stronger privacy regulations to prevent the misuse of data:

 

I think that this certain situation is so dire and has become so large that probably some well-crafted regulation is necessary. The ability of anyone to know what you’ve been browsing about for years, who your contacts are, who their contacts are, things you like and dislike and every intimate detail of your life — from my own point of view, it shouldn’t exist.”

[barmar]

It was in response to the list of accomplishments Trump made per Winston. I can't believe it took this long to get a Department of Defense financial audit. UNREAL....

But they didn't wait for the completion of the audit before giving them the biggest budget increase since the Reagan administration.

[RedSpawn]

Isn't it funny the pivot away from Reagan and anti-trust laws to Clinton and banking regulations. :o

Please note that I said "banking conglomerates" in my answer. . . which means there was a string of bank mergers that should have NEVER occurred under anti-trust laws.

 

The Department of Justice remained silent and didn't protest the big bank mergers.

 

Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase and Citibank (formerly Citigroup) should have NEVER allowed to bust through anti-trust laws and become banking behemoths.

 

I don't consider my answer a pivot once you see that I said "BANKING CONGLOMERATES".

 

Reagan may have provided the "theory" for anti-trust relaxation and deregulation but Robert Rubin and Congressional Democrats provided the "practice" by bending over backwards to accommodate Republicans by voting to repeal the Glass-Steagal Act.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

 

On January 4, 1995, the new Chairman of the House Banking Committee, Representative James A. Leach (R-IA), introduced a bill to repeal Glass–Steagall Sections 20 and 32.[134] After being confirmed as Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin announced on February 28, 1995, that the Clinton Administration supported such Glass–Steagall repeal.[135] Repeating themes from the 1980s, Leach stated Glass–Steagall was “out of synch with reality”[136] and Rubin argued “it is now time for the laws to reflect changes in the world’s financial system.”[135] (italics and bold mine)

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/06/news/economy/robert-rubin-interview-trump-economy/index.html

 

Under Clinton, Rubin was head of the National Economic Council for two years, then served as Treasury secretary from 1995 to 1999. It was a time of strong economic growth, but Rubin was later criticized for deregulation and for failing to identify risks that helped cause the 2008 financial crisis (italics and bold mine).

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/06/news/economy/robert-rubin-interview-trump-economy/index.html

After he left government, Rubin joined Citigroup as a top executive. In the decade that followed, Citi ramped up its exposure to risk, notably in the housing market. In November 2008, the bank nearly collapsed before the U.S. government announced a massive rescue package. Rubin stepped down in January 2009. (italics and bold mine)

I think it's fair to say that Rubin never learned his lesson about systemic risk to Citigroup and the broader economy. :rolleyes:

[Winstonm]

Reagan used way more than theory to change Sherman Anti-trust enforcement.

 

According to a memorandum by Treasury Secretary James A. Baker III, chairman of the President's Economic Policy Council, Reagan has approved a five-point legislative program recommended by his chief economic advisers to change the antitrust laws, which govern major areas of corporate activity.

 

The paradox is that libertarians should support the Sherman Anti-trust Act as it guarantees individuals the right to compete in free markets without facing giant competitors, but because it is an action by government the libertarian free-marketers have trapped themselves into having to be against it.

[Al_U_Card]

But they didn't wait for the completion of the audit before giving them the biggest budget increase since the Reagan administration.

TO COVER ANY SHORTFALL, silly! ;)

[Al_U_Card]

Isn't it funny the pivot away from Reagan and anti-trust laws to Clinton and banking regulations. :o

6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other

They are all just lackeys serving their corporate overlords... and certainly not us.

[Al_U_Card]

Please note that I said "banking conglomerates" in my answer. . . which means there was a string of bank mergers that should have NEVER occurred under anti-trust laws.

 

The Department of Justice remained silent and didn't protest the big bank mergers.

 

Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase and Citibank (formerly Citigroup) should have NEVER allowed to bust through anti-trust laws and become banking behemoths.

 

I don't consider my answer a pivot once you see that I said "BANKING CONGLOMERATES".

 

Reagan may have provided the "theory" for anti-trust relaxation and deregulation but Robert Rubin and Congressional Democrats provided the "practice" by bending over backwards to accommodate Republicans by voting to repeal the Glass-Steagal Act.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

 

 

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/06/news/economy/robert-rubin-interview-trump-economy/index.html

 

 

I think it's fair to say that Rubin never learned his lesson about systemic risk to Citigroup and the broader economy. :rolleyes:

Rubin, Sommers and Bernanke. The troika of debt.

[MrAce]

War of the source links!

 

Who is winning? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif

[kenberg]

War of the source links!

 

Who is winning? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif

 

I am.

[Al_U_Card]

I am.

And I bet you still have and wear cuff links too! ;)

[RedSpawn]

But they didn't wait for the completion of the audit before giving them the biggest budget increase since the Reagan administration.

I agree wholeheartedly. Trump put the cart in front of the horse with the FY18 Department of Defense appropriation. He wanted to keep his base and military leaders happy and LOYAL. Thus, he "hooked them up" and bought their loyalty by giving them MORE $$$ than they asked Congress for!

[y66]

Warning: This news source is biased. So?

 

While Trump Deals With A Porn Star, Congress Passes Barack Obama's Budget.

 

[Winstonm]

I am.

 

Yeah, but you had a head start.

[Winstonm]

Warning: This news source is biased. So?

 

While Trump Deals With A Porn Star, Congress Passes Barack Obama's Budget.

 

 

WaPo:

 

 

Trump privately presses for military to pay for border wall

 

Whose military?

[y66]

I see that former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who is also a former DC metro area bridge club player, has decided to weigh in on gun control reform:

 

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

 

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

 

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.

 

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

The dude abides.

[kenberg]

And I bet you still have and wear cuff links too! ;)

 

I wish to report abuse. Al has accused me of wearing cuff links.

[Al_U_Card]

I wish to report abuse. Al has accused me of wearing cuff links.

All part of the sausage (links) making...lol