This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: The Triumph of Crony Capitalism (Part 2)

Econophile's picture





 

From The Daily Capitalist

Part 2

Assumptions Guiding the Act

The Act is guided by several broad concepts:

  1. Wall Street must be strictly regulated to prevent systemic risk and to promote financial stability.
  2. Large interconnected international financial companies are inherently risky.
  3. Excessive leverage leads to systemic risk.
  4. A lack of transactional transparency impeded necessary regulatory control.
  5. Investors lacked information to properly understand the nature of complex risky securities.
  6. Regulators are capable of carrying out the intent of the Act.

Specific blame for the financial collapse is assigned as follows:

Lenders, investment bankers, credit-rating firms, mortgage brokers and others had ample incentive to take risks, often with other people's money. That led to a bubble in credit: too much borrowing.

 

The explosion of trading in the shadowy worlds of derivatives and hedge funds hid risks, and perhaps even created new ones, without the transparency essential to well-functioning markets.

 

Big financial firms lacked sufficient capital cushions to withstand a shock, and assets they could sell quickly to raise needed cash. …

 

For the inevitable day when another big financial firm gets into trouble, the bill attempts to impose order and punishment—but gives authorities the power to use taxpayer money if they deem it necessary. …

Description of the Act

What is obvious from a review of the Act is that the powers granted are very broad, almost unlimited, ill-defined, and yet to be written. The following descriptions of the Act are intended to give you an idea as to the vast scope of the Act and the powers granted. I have picked out some of the more important powers, but the Act is much more invasive and controlling than what I am describing here. I have gone into some detail because I believe that most people don't understand how pervasive the Act is. Please bear with me here; it will be eye-opening.

Here is a major law firm’s (Gibson Dunn) overview of the Act:

[The Act] … seeks to increase financial marketplace transparency and stability by establishing a Financial Stability Oversight Council (the “Council”) focused on identifying and monitoring systemic risks posed by financial firms and by financial activities and practices. It establishes a new regulatory and supervisory framework for “large, interconnected” banking organizations and certain nonbank financial companies. By a two-thirds vote, the Council can determine which U.S. and foreign nonbank financial companies that are predominantly engaged in financial activities (together “NBFCs”) are to be subject to enhanced supervision (“Supervised NBFCs”) by the [Fed], based on the perceived risk a company poses to financial stability in the United States. Empowering the Fed to implement this regime substantially enhances its powers and responsibilities.

As you will see, the Act, while it comprises 2,300 pages, speaks mostly of legislative goals, with specific requirements that require fleshing out by rules and regulations that will follow. For the most part, the actual law will be developed by the mandarins.

The Concept of Financial Risk

The entire Act is built around the concept of protecting the “financial stability” of the economy. The term “financial stability” is mentioned about 80 times in the Act but there is no definition of what it is. The Act assumes that the Council will know it when it sees it.

Instead of defining the term, the Act assigns the new Financial Stability Oversight Council the duty of regulating companies whose activities threaten “financial stability.” The Council is obligated to conduct studies and make findings on which to base new rules and regulations which establish “prudential standards” for regulated companies. It is assumed that out of that process “financial stability” will be defined, but it seems no one really knows what “financial stability” is or what consists of a threat to it. Which is a problem is when you give vast powers to a new agency: it makes their powers almost unlimited.

The likelihood of finding this Act unconstitutional because of vagueness is low. Consider the fact that a Council takeover of a company because it is a “threat to financial stability” will probably only be challenged in the courts during a financial crisis. This puts pressure on judges who have little knowledge of economics. They would be afraid to assume responsibility for the economy. Since the experts testifying in court will most likely be mainstream economists and financiers who believe in current economic thinking that such powers are necessary to save the economy, it is unlikely that courts will believe the testimony of “outliers” such as Austrian theory economists.

The Act thus creates a board of economics czars who will have almost unlimited powers to regulate the financial sector of the economy.

Financial Stability Oversight Council

The Act creates a council of regulators, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, to monitor and regulate companies it believes have the ability to jeopardize financial stability. It is to be chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Fed ends up as the primary regulator of financial firms and oversees the Council.

The idea is to prevent big “interconnected” banks and other large financial institutions such as hedge funds, investment banks, and insurance companies, from blowing up again. The extension of federal power to regulate nonbank financial institutions is a major expansion of federal authority.

The Council has the power to seize and break up financial firms whose collapse would put the economy in danger (“threaten the financial stability of the economy”). The Fed has the responsibility to decide whether the Council should vote on breaking up big companies. A position of a second Fed vice-chair is established to supervise financial firms; the White House appoints him or her (they have nominated Janet Yellen).

How the Rules Will Be Determined

The Council is given the following duties:

  1. Collect information from member agencies and other regulators, and research the issues.
  2. Adopt comprehensive regulations to control financial institutions.
  3. Monitor the financial services marketplace to identify potential threats to U.S. financial stability.
  4. Monitor domestic and international financial regulatory proposals and developments, including insurance and accounting issues.
  5. Advise Congress and make recommendations that will enhance the integrity, efficiency, competitiveness, and stability of the U.S. financial markets.
  6. Facilitate information sharing and coordination among the member agencies and other federal and state agencies regarding domestic financial services policy development, rulemaking, examinations, reporting requirements, and enforcement actions
  7. Recommend general supervisory priorities and principles.
  8. Identify gaps in regulation that could pose risks to U.S. financial stability.
  9. Require supervision by the Fed for nonbank financial companies that may pose risks to U.S. financial stability in the event of their material financial distress or failure, or because of their activities.
  10. Make recommendations to the Fed concerning the establishment of heightened prudential standards for risk-based capital, leverage, liquidity, contingent capital, resolution plans and credit exposure reports, concentration limits, enhanced public disclosures, and overall risk management for big interconnected banks and big financial institutions.
  11. Identify systemically important financial market utilities and payment, clearing, and settlement activities.
  12. Make recommendations to primary financial regulatory agencies to apply new or heightened standards and safeguards for financial activities or practices that could create or increase risks of significant liquidity, credit, or other problems spreading among big banks and other big financial institutions and U.S. financial markets.

Within 9 months they must adopt new regulations which must include:

  1. regulations implementing the permitted transactions provisions and any limitations on permitted transactions.
  2. regulations imposing additional capital requirements and quantitative limits (including diversification requirements) on permitted activities if the Regulators determine these limitations are appropriate to protect safety and soundness of banking entities engaged in permitted activities.
  3. regulations setting the ownership level in a fund that is "immaterial to the banking entity" which in any event cannot be more than 3% of the banking entity's own tier 1 capital [Volcker Rule]. The Volcker Rule will apply to any entity deemed to be systemically important nonbank financial companies
  4. regulations regarding internal controls and record keeping to insure compliance with the Rule.
  5. rules determining what "similar funds" are to be included in the definition of "hedge fund" and "private equity fund."
  6. rules defining the full extent of the definition of "trading account" for purposes of purposes of determining the scope of prohibitions on proprietary trading.
  7. rules defining additional securities that, if traded by a covered entity as a principal for its own trading account, constitute proprietary trading.
  8. rules defining additional accounts that count as "trading accounts" for purposes of determining the scope of the prohibition on proprietary trading.

Financial Institution Rules

Some of the key rules that apply to large ($50+ billion) interconnected financial companies include:

  1. The new “prudential standards” to be adopted by the Council may “differentiate” among companies, which means the Council can set “heightened standards” for some companies but not others, as they see fit.
  2. The new “prudential standards” may include risk-based capital requirements, leverage limits, liquidity requirements, resolution plan and credit exposure report requirements, concentration limits, a contingent capital requirement, enhanced public disclosures, short-term debt limits, and overall risk management requirements.
  3. The Council can limit a company’s leverage (i.e., debt to equity ratio) to 15 to 1, or less, if the company is found to pose a “grave threat to financial stability.”
  4. A new requirement requires regulated companies to “maintain a minimum amount of long-term hybrid debt that is convertible to equity in times of financial stress“ (”contingent capital”). In essence, the Council can require a company to convert this debt to equity in the event of a financial crisis. The Council has 2 years to study this and then tell us what this means.
  5. Regulated companies cannot have a credit exposure to a single unaffiliated firm that exceeds 25% of its capital and surplus.
  6. The “Volcker Rule” requires banks to limit proprietary trading to 3% of Tier 1 capital; they will have 7 years or longer to wind down such investments. The purpose of the rule is to restore “the Glass-Steagall barrier between commercial and investment banks” and to “update that barrier to reflect the modern financial world and permit a broad array of low-risk, client-oriented financial services.” In other words, banks, for the most part, will be more like utilities.
  7. A bank or a “systemically important nonbank financial company” is prohibited from acquiring or retaining any ownership interest in or sponsoring a hedge fund or private equity fund.
  8. Regulated companies cannot acquire any company with $10 billion or more in assets without giving the Fed prior notice.
  9. Banks must write “living wills” which is a roadmap for dissolution if seized by the government.
  10. Judicial review of a decision to subject a nonbank financial institution to the Council’s authority is limited to a finding that the decision was not “arbitrary and capricious.”
  11. To commence an “Orderly Liquidation Authority” (i.e., seizure of a financial institution determined to be in default or about to default), the Council must petition the D.C. District Court. The government only has to prove that (i) the company is in default or about to default, and (ii) the decision was not “arbitrary and capricious.” If the court fails to act within 24 hours of receiving the petition, the order goes into effect. The company affected may appeal the decision to the D.C. Court of Appeals, but the grounds of appeal are limited to the same findings as in the District Court. Once the petition is granted, the case proceeds similar to bankruptcy case.
  12. Do you recall President Obama’s promise that we taxpayers will never have to pay for bailouts again? That is not true, and they have found a way around unpopular bailouts. According to the Act, while the Fed cannot lend to specific companies it can lend as much as needed to “economic sectors”.
  13. Ron Paul’s efforts to gain oversight of the Fed were largely ignored, but the Act does prise open a small crack by allowing the GAO to audit certain emergency actions and the Fed must disclose the details of certain loan activity.

The Financial Stability Oversight Council has the power to do almost anything and there is very limited judicial review of their decisions. They justify these vast powers on their belief that they are necessary to protect the economy.


Tomorrow Part 3 of 4: a  further look at  the Act's provisions revealing the vast scope of this new law.
After Part 4 is published, I will post a link for a downloadable PDF version of the complete white paper.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 08/13/2010 - 16:06 | Link to Comment merehuman
merehuman's picture

there is a monster in the house, but the TV is on,ipod rang and i have a date tonite

or, Oh this will take care of itself

or, ME? i cant do nothen bout tis

or, i got a job with the government, What tent cities?

300 million, most having no clue

This reeks of genocide as the masses begin to suffer the ill effects of treason and thievery.

Some of you with monetary buffers have no clue of the suffering amongst our people. No job, no income often translates into greater harm as crime rises due to basic needs not met. Husbands and wifes fight, employees come to shoot their worksites coworkers and bosses. Some fly airplanes into federal buildings. All the result of an unjust lawless country.

Waiting for it to fall from within may be a long wait , i have no clue, some of you might. I got the impression from reading here daily that it would indeed fall from within. But much time has passed thinking that and here we still are with the same complaints.

Is it cowardice, what is it, that we have no recourse to being raped and robbed, that we all sit still while being rolled over?

Is TV and the media lies that effective? The internet is alive with folks like me, not entirely clueless. Having had less than an 8th grade education i freely admit i do not know how to proceed.

Perhaps is me being german, but i cannot live happily with the status quo.

I have freed myself, shut business, refusing to use or own the "dollar"

Bought some silver, gave one each to 300 of my small community, planted a Large garden, tried often to clue neighbors in and annoy folks at the market, asken " hey are you stocking up for the coming hyperinflation?"

Yes i have a shotgun and ammo, tools and musical instruments. Prepared as i may be, googling EARTH i see the masses in their many houses and wonder how the hell they will eat when it falls apart as it is doing now.

So i believe in action and noticed how few took 500 out of the bank and how many still trade on a market they know well to be illegitemate.

I am profoundly dissapointed by the lack of real men of character to take a stand. I expect you all feel you have too much to lose. I expect because of such tight hold it will escape you none the less.

Yet it is those of you who are moneid and most at risk of greater loss who should stand against the monster, against the thieves and pirates.

Stand and deliver...or whimper. Choose well

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 15:10 | Link to Comment Fishhawk
Fishhawk's picture

Milestones seems to have noted, correctly imho, that the CONgress, directed by its legion of lobbyists, and aided by corrupted socialist Supremes, has steadily delegated all its real duties to a cadre of insiders who are quietly creating a perfect fascist structure for the One World Government, driven from the inside by a One World Currency, which will be controlled by the Fed.  The DONK bill succeeds in eliminating the rule of law, and even excludes its actions from review by the courts, and turns all power to regulate money, and the value thereof, over to a cadre of insider bureaucrats.  Thus completes the transfer of control from we the people to we the banksters.  Not only will the DONK bill not prevent the next financial crash, it insulates those engineering the crash, and institutionalizes the concept and procedures needed to transfer bad debts from private financial companies directly to the government.  This completes the capture of the economy and all future tax collections; all profits now flow to the private banks, and the entire economy, including all corporations and all citizen-slaves are now fully owned by the government/financial complex.  If there were any where else to go, I would think it is (past) time to go.  Like an advnced brain cancer, the kleptocracy has now insinuated itself so completely that attacking it will kill the patient.

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 12:50 | Link to Comment Milestones
Milestones's picture

I am reposting my first submission to ZH of some 2 months ago as it relates to the Federal Reserve. The same objections I made @ the FED applies here. Congress does not have the authority to grant such sweeping powers. I contend that the Reserve Act of 1913 is not only unconstitutional--it is VOID.  Milestones

 

 

The Trials and Tribulations of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913

 

There has been, over the last several months that I have been reading ZH, issues raised concerning the Federal Reserve and The Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The almost unanimous opinion of the readers here as well as those blogs were the topic has come up such as Market Ticker, Jesse’s Café Americain, Naked Capitalism, Mish and others too numerous to mention all decry the “FED” and their propensity for large scale plundering of our economy among other peccadillos’ .

I would contend that after reviewing the circumstances of the FED, its origins and its daily operations, the FED is not only illegal and unconstitutional; that it is also void by law, and has been since its inception in 1913.

I will interject here and now, I am not an attorney. Hopefully the arguments I will lay out below will bring up the issue to be judged by what appears to be one of the most knowledgeable, well-educated and outspoken group on the web. I post below for your consideration, comments and rebuttal.

The Federal Reserve Act was passed by Congress in the last days of December by a handful of Senators who had not left for Christmas break.  The House had passed the bill earlier. President Wilson then signed it into law.

The concerns of those who oppose the FED generally center on Article I Section 8 (5) (18).That particular part of the U.S. Constitution reads in part: Article I Section 8 (5) says (Section 8)” Powers of Congress. The Congress shall have power: (5) To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin—“.

Herein lay my problem and question. The Constitution says “Congress shall have power—to regulate the value thereof.” That is what the Constitution says. Congress shall have the power to do. Oh, -I forgot, Congress apparently delegated that authority to the new kid on the block; the FED.

That delegation of power to the FED is my question. Did Congress have the authority to do so under the U.S. Constitution? So let us go to rulings by the Supreme Court to see what they had to say about this issue of delegation of authority.

Panama Refining Co. v Ryan 293 U.S. 388  1935

“The Constitution provides that 'All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.' Article 1, 1. And the Congress is empowered “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution' its general powers.” Article 1, 8, par. 18. The Congress manifestly is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested. Undoubtedly legislation must often be adapted to complex conditions involving a host of details with which the national Legislature cannot deal directly. The Constitution has never been regarded as denying to the Congress the necessary resources of flexibility and practicality, which will enable it to perform its function in laying down policies and establishing standards, while leaving to selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the Legislature is to apply. Without capacity to give authorizations of that sort we should have the anomaly of a legislative power which in many circumstances calling for its exertion would be but a futility. But the constant recognition of the necessity and validity of such provisions and the wide range of administrative authority which has been developed by means of them cannot be allowed to obscure the limitations of the authority to delegate, if our constitutional system is to be maintained.”

 

The Court observed that 'it was impracticable for Congress to provide general regulations for these various and varying details of management,' and that, in authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to meet local conditions, Congress 'was merely conferring administrative functions upon an agent, and not delegating to him legislative power.'

Thus, in every case in which the question has been raised, the Court has recognized that there are limits of delegation which there is no constitutional authority to transcend. We think that section 9(c) goes beyond those limits. As to the transportation of oil production in excess of state permission, the Congress has declared no policy, has established no standard, has laid down no rule. There is no requirement, no definition of circumstances and conditions in which the transportation is to be allowed or prohibited.

If section 9(c) were held valid, it would be idle to pretend that anything would be left of limitations upon the power of the Congress to delegate its lawmaking function. The reasoning of the many decisions we have reviewed would be made vacuous and their distinctions nugatory. Instead of performing its lawmaking function, the Congress could at will and as to such subjects as it chooses transfer that function to the President or other officer or to an administrative body. The question is not of the intrinsic importance of the particular statute before us, but of the constitutional processes of legislation which are an essential part of our system of government

FIELD V CLARK 143 US 649 1892

 “That congress cannot delegate legislative power to the president is a principle universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the constitution.

: 'The legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law, but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes, or intends to make, its own action depend. To deny this would be to stop the wheels of government. There are many things upon which wise and useful legislation must depend which cannot be known to the law-making power, and must therefore be a subject of inquiry and determination outside of the halls of legislation.'

That no part of this legislative power can be delegated by congress to any other department of the government, executive or judicial, is an axiom in constitutional law, and is universally recognized as a principle essential to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the constitution. The legislative power must remain in the organ where it is lodged by that instrument.”

Well now, it appears by the language of the above two cited Supreme Court decisions, i.e.: Panama of 1935 and Field of 1892, the Federal Reserve Act is bracketed by 2 separate decisions by the Supremes; one prior to the Fed act of 1913 and one after; that the court has said that Congress does not have the authority to delegate the power “to regulate the value thereof” as that power is directly mentioned in the Federal Constitution as being granted to Congress.

Please bear with me. Sovereignty is granted to “We the people” as outlined in the first 3 words of the Preamble. As such, under the Constitution, we delegate our sovereign authority to persons to represent us in dealing with the events that govern us from day to day. But it is the reserve of the sovereign’s to delegate authority, not Congress; they only represent us; but it does not carry with it the authority to yet further delegate congressional power-that is our power as sovereigns to bind this nation in such a manner.

John Locke came to the same conclusion: (Parliament, Congress)—“Cannot transfer power of making laws to any other hands for it is being but a delegated power from the people who have it and cannot pass it over to others.”

I would contend that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is illegal under the Constitution. Further if we consider Marbury v Madison of 1803, a decision which to my knowledge has never been legally overturned, states the case in even far starker terms:

Marbury v Madison 17 Wall 205 Cranch 2  1803

“Thus the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principal, supposedly to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and the courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” Marbury v Madison  17 Wall 205 Cranch 1,2,3,4, Book 2

So now, if we follow he train to the end of the line, not only does the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 appear to be unconstitutional due to Congress’s illegal delegation of power concerning “The regulating the value thereof” part of  Art. 1 Section 5 and 18; one is drawn to the conclusion that the Federal Reserve Act is void under Marbury. Congress acted illegally and contrary to the constitution by delegating its authority but President Wilson also acted illegally in signing said act into law.—“as well as other departments are bound by that instrument.”

: Black’s Law Dictionary

Manifest—Evident to the senses, especially to the sight, obvious to the understanding, evident to the mind, not obscure or hidden, and is synonymous with open, clear, visible, unmistakable, indubitable, indisputable, evident and self evident. In evidence, that which is clear and needs no proof; that which is notorious.

Void—Null; ineffectual; nugatory; having no legal force or binding effect; unable in law, to support the purpose for which it was intended. An instrument or transaction which is wholly ineffective, inoperative and incapable of ratification and which thus has no force or effect so that nothing can cure it.

In short, I contend Congress was and is prohibited by the Constitution from delegating any of its authority that is vested to it in the Constitution as shown in the 2 cases cited,i.e. Panama and Field and that that action was repugnant to that instrument and is Void under Marbury. There are undoubtly many, many laws that are currently on the books that would fall into this category. 

Because the Supremes have already addressed such acts as outlined above, I question how they could rule against what they have already done. I would think the government could simply fire up the presses, make changes to the currency as did JFK in 1962 when he used red ink on $5 bills and simply deal out the Fed. (This contemplates of course eliminating Tiny Tim and BB).

 I am well aware this sounds rather simplistic, but if the FED is seized lock, stock and barrel and folded into the Treasury there will of course issues to be resolved but I really can’t see them as being life threatening. Congress could try and reinstate the Act but would almost certainly face 1890’s wild west  justice rapidly; like while they are all still in D.isneyland C.entral.

I am not so naiveté as to believe TPTB are going to roll over if my argument is correct. It will be ignored, and laughed at later if ignoring it fails. But Joe Sixpack is growing more and more aware that somehow the FED is the central problem in the financial mess this country finds itself. The connection must be made in the public mind that this 1920’s Al Capone Chicago style Mafia lives again posing as upstanding bankers who are in fact monstrous crooks who are in direct violation, not of the law, but of the U.S. CONSTITUTION and the banking industry are not just “greedy” people but a Mafia criminal element threatening this nation and its well being. A proper coat of paint would go a long way to identify to the general public who and what these criminals are about.

And now the caveats: this is my first post. This issue has been sticking in my craw for some time now and ZH appears to be the best forum to outline my thoughts. It’s not the only one. Corporations as people, which Thom Hartmann has gone over in his book, Unequal Protection, is another saddle on the American public that has bothered me for some time. I hope to address that issue sometime in the near future.

 Further I am not an attorney as mentioned earlier and I do not know how to use the internet to Shepardize the 2 mentioned cases. I know there are attorneys on this site and any comments, critiques or help on this would be greatly appreciated.

 Getting bent over a barrel is never fun but that’s how the game has to be played if you want to know if you have something or you’re as full of shit as a Christmas goose. Let the games begin.

Regards, Milestones

 

 

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 15:41 | Link to Comment minus dog
minus dog's picture

"The Congress manifestly is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested. "

This is one of the fundamental problems with our government - up there with the need for term limits.  Most here tend to be focused on financial activities for obvious reasons, but name any subject - literally, anything - and you will find not only government regulation of it, but government agencies to whom congress has delegated their power in the form of rule-making authority.  

These people answer to almost no one, and they frequently care nothing for due process.

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 11:48 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Congress granting themselves unlimited power in response to the failure of their last power grab?

Unpossible!

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 11:00 | Link to Comment Agent P
Agent P's picture

Sounds to me like the new FSOC will be able to declare a financial firm an enemy combatant and ship them off to Gitmo. 

I wonder if any large Wall Street firms in particular might have some influence over this process of protecting our economic system from firms that are becoming too big for their own good (i.e., the competition)...hmmmm.

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 12:36 | Link to Comment andyupnorth
andyupnorth's picture

And I'd like to know if these "regulators" and their friends would ever get busted for insider trading right before they decided to seize any business...

I'd bet Goldman Sucks alumni are piling in their applications for the job.

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 10:45 | Link to Comment Marvin_M
Marvin_M's picture

An incomprehensible, megalithic  and deliberately arcane insider’s joke written by financial industry lobbyists and voted into law by the most corrupt Congress in living memory.  Triumphant evidence of the Obama administrations “hard line” on Wall street that contains few specifics and relies on future generations of bought and paid for shills to interpret and enact.  A disgraceful exhibition of bureaucratic government’s complete lack of honesty and resolve in understanding core problems and dealing with them; instead papering over them with reams of nonsense to placate the ignorant masses.

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 10:40 | Link to Comment Yardfarmer
Yardfarmer's picture

I found this commentary, originally posted on Harvey Organ's site before he deleted it, interesting:

excuse me if i cannot share Adrian Douglas' enthusiasm for the sham financial measure spoken of in such glowing terms by the pitchman Brad Chilton whose rhapsodic and fulsome praise of his boss Obama belies the intrinsic worthlessness of this bill. Despite Chilton's assertions otherwise, this hogwash does nothing to delimit the "too big to fail" monoliths of the financial system. This measure was actually deleted alone with Dorgan's attempt to limit the size of these monster zombie banks. The most significant effort to reign in the notorious hybrids of investment/commercial banks via the re-instatement of the Glass-Steagal Act was unceremoniously removed as were efforts by Blanche Lincoln to stop banks from trading in derivatives. The great "populist" Scott Brown, actually a shill from NY Mellon bank, on the other hand introduced a successful amendment to allow hedge funds to devote 3% of capital to the purchase of the toxic and destructive financial implements. In addition an already watered down Volcker Rule was completely gutted. The bill written by Wall Street investment bankers (much like the health bill was written by insurance companies) also stipulates progressive delays in the implementation of the provisions therein starting with a 6 month "grace" period to "study" the proprietary trading of banks and extending the effective enactment of the major provisions to a full 12 years! This is just so much window dressing which will do little to delay the inevitable economic and social collapse of this nation due to more than $1.5 quadrillion in financial toxic waste fatally poisoning our economy. Although I too much appreciate the position limits in silver, I feel this measure has accomplished much too little far too late.

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 10:15 | Link to Comment old_turk
old_turk's picture

a) Thanks for the great article.

and b)

The Act thus creates a board of economics czars who will have almost unlimited powers to regulate the financial sector of the economy.

 

where can I get one of those jobs?

Or is those seats reserved for Larry, Ben and Turbo Boy?

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 09:27 | Link to Comment DavidC
DavidC's picture

US Constitution, handwritten, four pages.

Donk, close typed, 2,300 pages.

In the UK, during its tenure, Labour created 6,300 NEW laws (yes, that is not a typo).

DavidC

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 10:50 | Link to Comment Agent P
Agent P's picture

"US Constitution, handwritten, four pages."

Yeah, but come on...it needed 27 amendments.  I'm sure this bill is perfect from the beginning!

(sarcasm off)

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 12:20 | Link to Comment DavidC
DavidC's picture

Agent P,
Yes, of course, you're right. I think I'm correct in stating that Tolley's (tax reference material in the UK) increased size wise fourfold under Labour's tenure - if the number of changes are in the same order that should make some nice weekend reading for someone of 9,000 to 10,000 pages.

Loved your comment!

DavidC

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 08:54 | Link to Comment Merlin12
Merlin12's picture

These people wil tell the proletariat to believe that abandoning the management of the economy to a web of faceless bureaucrats gives us a better chance of avoiding trouble, but what they really intend is to create another bureacratic monster which will allow them to manipulate money without having to actually touch it.  I know from personal experience that a Congressmen from Massachusetts used the Small Business Administration to manipulate the awarding of contracts for D.o.D. services.  My ass still smarts from time to time from that one.  From what my Navy contacts told me at the time, using the SBA to over-rule Naval procurement decisions was the rule rather than the exception - and the SBA laws they showed me were clearly written with this purpose in mind.  

We cannot be too aggressive in the cause of explaining this to the American electorate.

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 08:19 | Link to Comment DOT
DOT's picture

Large non-bank financial organization needing further regulation to stem systemic risk: Federal Government.

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 08:47 | Link to Comment breezer1
breezer1's picture

federal reserve.

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 07:55 | Link to Comment kalum
kalum's picture

More reasons for any business that can do so to leave the U. S. Malta looks great to me. Great weather and scenery. More compliance costs to be paid by consumer. More regulatory crap that no one can figure out, certainly not government employees. Thanks for your work.

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 14:41 | Link to Comment sethstorm
sethstorm's picture

Going to a Third World hellhole won't help either.  It just makes the hunt easier to sanction.

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 08:41 | Link to Comment DudleyDoRight
DudleyDoRight's picture

While it looks like DONK has many issues, for those wanting to get out of the US, go and don't let the door hit you. 

Moreover, the competitive equity notions in the international banking act of 1978 should be revisited if they serve simply as a means to allow US entities to offshore and then come back into the US.

I wonder if a foreign bank from malta has been vetted under the foreign bank supervision enhancement act. Hmm...wonder if US bank regulation would pass if subject to FBSEA scrutiny?? Sigh.

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 07:48 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Thank you for a great, ongoing series.

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 08:45 | Link to Comment breezer1
breezer1's picture

+100.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!