The Obama administration is quietly taking decisive action to cut banking down to size

[Sgent]

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/7/11381114/obama-bank-size

<cut>
Just this week came announced rules on tax inversions and financial advising, along with hints of a substantial crackdown on shell companies.

None of this is as dramatic or easy to explain as a few CEOs being dragged off in handcuffs, but it adds up to a big agenda that — if sustained by the next administration — could do a lot to cut into the size of the American financial sector.

<cut>

What they are doing with this suite of new rules is something different but thematically aligned — shrinking the financial sector as a whole by cracking down on many of its sources of revenues. Right now in the United States there are no particularly large auto dealership companies, but auto dealerships as a whole are very big business. Similarly, finance as a whole could be big even if it were fragmented into midsize banks. Conversely, finance as a whole can shrink without becoming less concentrated.

All three new rules shrink the financial sector by cutting down on lucrative activities that have nothing to do with finance's core social purpose of channeling funds to economically useful activities. The nature of the regulatory process is that each rule needs to be justified on its own narrow terms, but putting them all together reveals a surprisingly activist Obama administration that's still at work in its last year on putting banking in its place.

[Sherman A1]

1. Nice

however, it seems this could have been started about 6 or so years ago.

[PragmaticLiberal]

3. To be fair, six years ago most of the focus was on trying to stabilize the economy.

[Baobab]

4. general Agreement on Trade in Services blocks putting limits on too big to fail banks

why can't they be honest and discuss this- the real cause- instead they are pretending its all sorts of other things.

[Hortensis]

23. Because there are all sorts of other things.

[Rex]

26. It is all sorts of other things, that is what they want to stop the banks from doing. Other things.

Just like the separation of church and state, banks and Wall Street should have never been allowed to conspire against their clients and innocent homeowners.

[Baobab]

27. Must read this- Please read this

Countries should be allowed to better regulate banks by the WTO (and the lack of regulation is likely the result of US pressure on WTO especially in the 1990s)

Thanks to that pesky WTO (and that US pressure) we now have a regime in place at WTO (i.e. globally) that bars any changes that effectively regulate the TBTF banks.

And now they want still more deregulation which is nuts.

PLEASE read the following:

https://www.citizen.org/documents/Memo%20-%20Unanswered%20questions%20memo%20for%20Geneva.pdf

http://www.citizen.org/documents/That%27sAllTheyGot.pdf

https://www.citizen.org/documents/memo-gats-conflict-with-bank-size-limits-may-10-2011.pdf

[Rex]

28. I've known about the WTO and the IMF running the global like it was a shit company.

A crappy, pyramid scheme company. Thanks for the links, I will check them out!

[BernieforPres2016]

44. So it could have been started in 2010 or 2011 nt

[Wilms]

2. He's trying to tidy up a bit for Sanders.

Every bit is appreciated.

[jwirr]

5. That is what I was wondering. Is this one of the steps that

will help to littler? And is our movement in action?

[NCjack]

7. Or, is Pres. Obama dulling the axe so that Bernie has difficulty in

chopping Hillary's legs over her relationships with the Banksters and CEOs?

[jwirr]

8. And yes, that is also a possibility.

[Hortensis]

24. No, it's really not. President Obama's doing

what you say you want. Be glad.

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. Wouldn't doubt it.

[Cosmocat]

22. Or ...

he simply wants to do the right thing?

[NCjack]

30. Why not seven years ago? /nt

[stopwastingmymoney]

31. Because the economy was in free fall seven years ago

Better to ask why not two years ago?

Perhaps because Bernie has changed the national conversation?

[NCjack]

32. Inversions and tax evasion could not be stopped because of the free fall of the economy? Seems

to that retain USA's business tax base would add to the stablization of our economy. Instead, we let thousands of American corporations move out of USA. And, it could have been stopped by the Treasury Dept changing 10 rules. Not a good idea to wait seven years to make these changes. Pres. Obama had the changes made to turn down the heat that Bernie is putting on Hillary.

[stopwastingmymoney]

33. That's not what I said at all

I'm talking about the timing of the thing. Too many changes at once cause their own problems, these things have to be planned, immediate problems dealt with first, etc.

And then I'm talking about political feasibility. Your assessment of President Obama's motivation may be correct, but I'm inclined to think that it's more the current climate gives him political cover to do things he wants to do anyway.

Either way it's a good thing

[NCjack]

34. I guess I don't understand what you mean.

When USA was bleeding money, as we were when Pres. Obama began his first term, I think stop-loss tax steps, such as making inversions more difficult, should have been performed immediately. Instead, he waited 7 years. I am happy that he did it, but not happy that it took 7 years. Makes me suspicious that his motive is to influence the DEM primary by lowering the heat on Hillary and to preempt Bernie doing it when he is elected.

[Cosmocat]

52. That is pretty fantastical

first, the primary is half over.

If his intent was to influence the primary, you'd think he would have done this three months ago.

The other poster is spot on.

He did what he ran on, tried to be the adult and work with Rs.

Now that he is on the back end of his last term, he is clearing the decks with as much as he can unilaterally.

[Cosmocat]

51. WINNER!

I would be inclined to your inclination ...

[Hekate]

6. "If sustained by the next administration" It is absolutely key that we get another Dem elected.

When the times comes, we must all hang together -- or as Ben Franklin noted, "Or we shall surely hang separately."

[revbones]

42. Ain't but one in the race and your team seems to not like him. nt

[Hekate]

48. Oh, you mean the Bernie-Come-Lately-to-the-Party. I'm sure he'd do his best.

[revbones]

49. Oh, I didn't realize

that only the letter D counted and not democratic principles. That explains you being a Hillary follower. Nuff said. Carry on.

[cprise]

54. One big happy party with most of its 'members' switched

from D to I.

The Hillary-Come-Lately-to-Democratic-Principles has been a sight to behold...

Hillary vs. Bernie on Panama Free Trade Agreement (2011)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017350441

Panama Papers: Corporations Shifted A Half-Trillion Dollars To Offshore Tax Havens In 2012
http://www.ibtimes.com/panama-papers-corporations-shifted-half-trillion-dollars-offshore-tax-havens-2012-2351814

Oopsie!

[bettyellen]

9. I'm kind of amazed more of DU isn't all over this?

[w4rma]

18. Because he waited until now to do it. It rings false. (nt)

[bettyellen]

29. WOW. Twist yourself into a pretzel to avoid giving him any credit.

[w4rma]

38. These catch phrases you use, don't mean what you think they mean, bettyellen. (nt)

[cprise]

55. US became world's largest tax haven on Obama's watch:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-05/rotschild-admits-america-biggest-tax-haven-world-obama-slams-tax-evasion

Keep pushin' those FTAs......

[Hortensis]

25. I was thrilled that Pfizer's plan to "move"

to Ireland is now illegal -- thanks to just one of these moves by Obama.

Also that radical move to make investment advisers actually serve their customers with, you know...dutiful fiduciary advice. Right there a major fix to major corruption. I knew something had happened when I started hearing the birds singing better even with the windows closed. That giant sucking sound is ramping down yet more.

As for DU, you're not exactly amazed, right? That'd require a major paradigm shift, and that's not going to happen. True Believers know if it's not Bernie, it's not theirs. And if it's not Bernie's and it's not theirs, it's Bad.

[Hortensis]

43. May they continue just a while longer!?

And you are SO right. Interesting how, no matter how much we talk, we seem to still be treated by the media as almost a "silent" minority-type majority. Even Trump should have been very careful not to offend us.

[bettyellen]

45. Their fucking mistake for taking us for granted.

I can imagine the sexism will ramp up if Hillary becomes POTUS, sort of like the ugly last gasps of blatant racism we have been seeing.

[Hortensis]

46. Oh, yes. But, too late!

Those hopefully "last gasps" have included greatly increased persecution of black people across the nation since Obama's election. They're only 13% of the populace overall; and most victims, of course, are relatively disempowered. If women were to be targeted for sexist rage, I'd hope our numbers and presence in almost every household would help put a pretty quick end to that. It'd be important to start out aware and alert.

[JDPriestly]

10. Sounds like a good start toward a healthier banking system. Thanks to all who worked on

these new regulations.

What I heard about the fiduciary duty of investment advisors left me with some questions, but this is a move in the right direction.

[hopemountain]

12. every step to achieve this goal is

a step forward... get the banksters used to the idea it is going to happen for reals

[ConsiderThis_2016]

13. If it were not for Bernie Sanders...

...President Obama would not be doing squat to the banks. Hillary told us how much he received from the banking industry. Lame Duck, a day late and a dollar short. IMO

[appalachiablue]

39. +1

[Gene Debs]

14. "Quietly"? Given what I've observed of the last seven years of this administration, it'll be

so quiet that it isn't actually happening. And "decisive" is hardly a word I would associate with Barack Obama. I won't hold my breath.

[blm]

15. QUIET being the operative word. Sad that the party isn't trumpeting these accomplishments

when it would make a huge difference in how some here at DU are getting away with pushing the perception that there is 'no difference' between the parties.

Well, some are perceptions, some are outright lying Republican operatives fomenting division.

[lovemydog]

16. Good!

[PatV]

17. How funny. He's finally doing something about the big banks. Why?

They have it all now. Too bad there was no help when people were losing their 401ks and their homes.

And this is just so he can shove his trade agreements down our throats.

[Yo_Mama]

21. They aren't. This is BS. And Congress would have to do it.

The president or any executive authority, does not the authority split them up until Congress creates it, and it hasn't.

Dodd-Frank really encouraged larger banks, bank holding companies, and financial holding companies.

[appalachiablue]

40. Ah yes, TPP comin' up. The Big Tuna...

[cstanleytech]

19. Why dont the feds just redo the FDIC rules and say if a bank gets to big it loses FDIC protection?

[Yo_Mama]

20. The conclusion appears to me to be total nonsense.

These measures certainly don't affect auto financing, or even financing. What the heck to tax inversions have to do with financing? Or financial advisors?

TThe only thing that's even about banks are the shell companies & KYC rules. Nor is it true that the rules have allowed "knowing the name of the company". You are supposed to know the beneficial owners already, if it appears risky. March 5, 2010:
https://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/fin-2010-g001.html

But how does all of this cut down on the total amount of finance? It doesn't.

The KYC/beneficial owners thing helps to deal with money laundering/terrorism/sanctions problems, but as for financing? Heh, those are used to move money, not borrow money.

I think this is a propaganda piece. Not only is the US not splitting up big banks, they are getting bigger and bigger by the hour and the minute.

And credit is growing as well.

The person who wrote the article has no clue, and I suspect someone handed this stuff out prewritten for political purposes, but it is literal nonsense.

[True Earthling]

35. +1 - agreed this makes no sense...

The author is unqualified to write about financial matters IMO...

"Matthew Yglesias used to have other, different jobs writing things on the internet for different websites. Now he works here."

[appalachiablue]

47. It does raise a lot of questions especially with regard to motive, substance & timing.

[Califonz]

36. I think speaking fees must plummet

Once Wall Street thinks you or your wife probably won't ever have political power again.

[Beartracks]

37. Not as dramatic "as a few CEOs being dragged off in handcuffs" but then again...

... the problem is systemic in the first place, as it was never actually just the result of a few colluding CEOs.

Nice job. Or... Thanks, Obama!



=======================

[Democat]

53. Impossible, Obama is worse than Bush!

And Bill Clinton was worse than Reagan.

Check the Primaries forum for proof.

[seabeckind]

56. Gotta question the timing

Student debt issue -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141412256

Quietly taking decisive action to cut banking down to size -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027745608

Kills Largest Corporate Attempt Yet To Flee Overseas And Dodge Taxes -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027743166

It's almost like he's finally recognized some of the issues that people have been talking about.

At a time when his friend is coming under fire for these very issues.