If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Trump sets the stage for a regulatory slapfight of epic proportions   ( politico.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Financial services, deputy director, CFPB Director Richard, Director Richard Cordray, Mulvaney acting director, White House Chief of Staff, President of the United States, outgoing CFPB Director  
•       •       •

4963 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Nov 2017 at 2:30 AM (29 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-11-24 09:59:50 PM  
Has he realized his Tweets can be throttled?
 
2017-11-25 12:16:40 AM  
the Federal Vacancies Act allows the president to install a temporary acting head of any executive agency who has already been confirmed by the Senate to another position

Kinda makes a mockery of the Senate confirmation process. "All right, we deem you to be acceptable to run the Department of X"

"PSYCH!"
 
2017-11-25 12:28:56 AM  

fusillade762: the Federal Vacancies Act allows the president to install a temporary acting head of any executive agency who has already been confirmed by the Senate to another position

Kinda makes a mockery of the Senate confirmation process. "All right, we deem you to be acceptable to run the Department of X"

"PSYCH!"


The problem is that the CFPB is an independent agency, not an executive one.

The CFPB is one of the most powerful tools that every-day American people can utilize to fight Big Business/Banks and their rip-off schemes, whether it's predatory payday loans, mortgages, car loans, or credit cards.

And Mulvaney gets to remain as head of the OMB...WTF?! Seriously, FARK Trump!
 
2017-11-25 02:00:37 AM  
cinema1544.files.wordpress.comView Full Size


Forget about it Jake.
 
2017-11-25 02:33:04 AM  
Robert Reich
1 hr ·
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is one of the few remaining federal agencies still actually protecting people (recall Wells Fargo and Equifax).
Today, in a blatant attempt to kill off the agency, Trump named his budget director, Mick Mulvaney, to become its acting director.
But before Trump did so, Richard Cordray, the agency's outgoing director, appointed Leandra English, the agency's chief of staff, as deputy director.
Under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act that established the agency, the deputy director serves as acting director in the absence of a permanent director. And the President has no direct authority to appoint a permanent director; the agency reports to the Federal Reserve.
So English should be in charge, effective immediately. If Trump pushes ahead with his appointment of Mulvaney, the issue will wind up in the courts.
Just another example of the Trump administration's disdain for the rule of law.
What do you think?
 
2017-11-25 02:44:21 AM  
-Director of Consumer Protection Bureau leaves
-Trump appoints acting director whose beliefs are antithetical to the department he's running
-Trump never names another person to be confirmed
-GOP continues to not give a shiat
-just another day that ends in "y"
 
2017-11-25 02:51:50 AM  
Through ignorance or spite, trump will continue to destroy norms of government and civil society. And remember that this is why Republicans voted for him.
 
2017-11-25 03:03:37 AM  
"The President looks forward to seeing Director Mulvaney take a common sense approach to leading the CFPB's dedicated staff, an approach that will empower consumers to make their own financial decisions and facilitate investment in our communities," the White House said in a statement Friday night.

Translation:  The average consumer is farked.

/freedom to the GOP is the freedom of corporations to have their way at the expense of the general population's freedom
 
2017-11-25 03:05:08 AM  
He told us he was gonna.
 
2017-11-25 03:24:51 AM  
pics.me.meView Full Size
 
2017-11-25 03:42:28 AM  
So we going for a financial crisis every ten years now? Just like we used to do with wars until the last one became permanent.
 
2017-11-25 03:43:42 AM  

Wretschko: fusillade762: the Federal Vacancies Act allows the president to install a temporary acting head of any executive agency who has already been confirmed by the Senate to another position

Kinda makes a mockery of the Senate confirmation process. "All right, we deem you to be acceptable to run the Department of X"

"PSYCH!"

The problem is that the CFPB is an independent agency, not an executive one.

The CFPB is one of the most powerful tools that every-day American people can utilize to fight Big Business/Banks and their rip-off schemes, whether it's predatory payday loans, mortgages, car loans, or credit cards.

And Mulvaney gets to remain as head of the OMB...WTF?! Seriously, FARK Trump!


It's funny how some people can't see the problem with having an agency that 's a law unto itself. The CFPB was constructed to be completely insulated from accountability to anyone. It's even funded by the Federal Reserve, meaning the neither the executive nor legislative branches exercise any control or oversight.

Fortunately, the courts have ruled its makeup unconstitutional, and it'll have to be restructured even if it survives in some form.
 
2017-11-25 03:49:08 AM  

Magruda: So we going for a financial crisis every ten years now? Just like we used to do with wars until the last one became permanent.


It's a little longer than every decade. 1980, 1990, 2001, 2007...Been that way for a long time.
 
2017-11-25 03:53:17 AM  

Shaggy_C: Magruda: So we going for a financial crisis every ten years now? Just like we used to do with wars until the last one became permanent.

It's a little longer than every decade. 1980, 1990, 2001, 2007...Been that way for a long time.


img.fark.netView Full Size

So you get my point you just don't like that I rounded the number?
 
2017-11-25 04:01:15 AM  

Magruda: Shaggy_C: Magruda: So we going for a financial crisis every ten years now? Just like we used to do with wars until the last one became permanent.

It's a little longer than every decade. 1980, 1990, 2001, 2007...Been that way for a long time.

[img.fark.net image 401x577]
So you get my point you just don't like that I rounded the number?


Sorry, not what I meant. It was more that the human condition is one of boom and bust, so the best we can really hope for is a crash every few years. We might be able to stretch it out a little longer sometimes but all that does is make the crashes that much harder. Trump's lack of regulatory oversight will just add fuel to the flames but it's not like having a different president would make much of a difference in the longer term macro sense.
 
2017-11-25 04:11:29 AM  

Shaggy_C: Magruda: Shaggy_C: Magruda: So we going for a financial crisis every ten years now? Just like we used to do with wars until the last one became permanent.

It's a little longer than every decade. 1980, 1990, 2001, 2007...Been that way for a long time.

[img.fark.net image 401x577]
So you get my point you just don't like that I rounded the number?

Sorry, not what I meant. It was more that the human condition is one of boom and bust, so the best we can really hope for is a crash every few years. We might be able to stretch it out a little longer sometimes but all that does is make the crashes that much harder. Trump's lack of regulatory oversight will just add fuel to the flames but it's not like having a different president would make much of a difference in the longer term macro sense.


I'm sorry but after the Great Depression I was under the correct assumption that there were no financial crises until late 1970s thanks to the Nee Deal regulation

Remember, there were no financial crashes in the '50s and the '60s, because the regulatory apparatus of the New Deal was still in place. As it began to be dismantled under business pressure and political pressure, you get more and more crashes, and it goes on right through the years - the '70s is where deregulation starts, and the '80s is where crashes really take off..
 
2017-11-25 04:14:04 AM  

jjorsett: Wretschko: fusillade762: the Federal Vacancies Act allows the president to install a temporary acting head of any executive agency who has already been confirmed by the Senate to another position

Kinda makes a mockery of the Senate confirmation process. "All right, we deem you to be acceptable to run the Department of X"

"PSYCH!"

The problem is that the CFPB is an independent agency, not an executive one.

The CFPB is one of the most powerful tools that every-day American people can utilize to fight Big Business/Banks and their rip-off schemes, whether it's predatory payday loans, mortgages, car loans, or credit cards.

And Mulvaney gets to remain as head of the OMB...WTF?! Seriously, FARK Trump!

It's funny how some people can't see the problem with having an agency that 's a law unto itself. The CFPB was constructed to be completely insulated from accountability to anyone. It's even funded by the Federal Reserve, meaning the neither the executive nor legislative branches exercise any control or oversight.

Fortunately, the courts have ruled its makeup unconstitutional, and it'll have to be restructured even if it survives in some form.


That ruling was appealed and will be overturned as soon as its hears, since it would mean that the Social Security Administration, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Office of Special Counsel are also unconstitutional, since they are set up the same way.
 
2017-11-25 04:15:02 AM  
The reason Trump will lose this one is that there's, y'know, not actually a vacancy, there's already an acting director in place according to the law.

I mean, we all know he's going to lose because he's Trump and even if the law was unambiguously on his side and 100% of congress agreed with him he'd somehow manage to negotiate it into a loss.  I'm just laying my bet on the specifics of it in this case.
 
2017-11-25 04:39:59 AM  

DubyaHater: -Director of Consumer Protection Bureau leaves
-Trump appoints acting director whose beliefs are antithetical to the department he's running
-Trump never names another person to be confirmed
-GOP continues to not give a shiat
-just another day that ends in "y"


CPFB follows Dodd-Frank, ignores Mulvaney.  Checkmate, RWNJs.
 
2017-11-25 05:12:28 AM  
"commonsense" now means "whatever campaign contributors demand"
 
2017-11-25 05:17:08 AM  

Shaggy_C: Magruda: Shaggy_C: Magruda: So we going for a financial crisis every ten years now? Just like we used to do with wars until the last one became permanent.

It's a little longer than every decade. 1980, 1990, 2001, 2007...Been that way for a long time.

[img.fark.net image 401x577]
So you get my point you just don't like that I rounded the number?

Sorry, not what I meant. It was more that the human condition is one of boom and bust, so the best we can really hope for is a crash every few years. We might be able to stretch it out a little longer sometimes but all that does is make the crashes that much harder. Trump's lack of regulatory oversight will just add fuel to the flames but it's not like having a different president would make much of a difference in the longer term macro sense.


that's not so much the "human condition" as the way the system in place goes. Doesn't make it "natural".
 
2017-11-25 05:35:59 AM  
Appointing YET ANOTHER person who hates the agency they are to run?  Christ, he's a farking supervillain.
 
2017-11-25 05:39:13 AM  

Magruda: Shaggy_C: Magruda: Shaggy_C: Magruda: So we going for a financial crisis every ten years now? Just like we used to do with wars until the last one became permanent.

It's a little longer than every decade. 1980, 1990, 2001, 2007...Been that way for a long time.

[img.fark.net image 401x577]
So you get my point you just don't like that I rounded the number?

Sorry, not what I meant. It was more that the human condition is one of boom and bust, so the best we can really hope for is a crash every few years. We might be able to stretch it out a little longer sometimes but all that does is make the crashes that much harder. Trump's lack of regulatory oversight will just add fuel to the flames but it's not like having a different president would make much of a difference in the longer term macro sense.

I'm sorry but after the Great Depression I was under the correct assumption that there were no financial crises until late 1970s thanks to the Nee Deal regulation

Remember, there were no financial crashes in the '50s and the '60s, because the regulatory apparatus of the New Deal was still in place. As it began to be dismantled under business pressure and political pressure, you get more and more crashes, and it goes on right through the years - the '70s is where deregulation starts, and the '80s is where crashes really take off..


I guess it depends on your definition of crisis; we did have the recessions of 1949, 1953, 1958, 1960, 1969, and 1973, and the 70s-era stagflation was a serious financial issue despite not having a clearly New Deal cause. I would argue the move away from the gold standard has had far more to do with he extremes of the boom bust cycle than anything the idiots in congress have done.
 
2017-11-25 05:45:37 AM  

Kirablue42: that's not so much the "human condition" as the way the system in place goes. Doesn't make it "natural".


Ah, but is it really? There are thousands of years of history recording resource over-exploitation and the subsequent crashes of society, ranging from the Egyptians to the Mayans to the Greeks and the Romans, right through to Tulip mania and the Panic of 1825. The boom bust cycle isn't something created by the Fed or the big banks, it's just the way humans are. We take too much, we fail to make any real plans for the future, and inevitably the house of cards comes tumbling down.
 
2017-11-25 07:31:02 AM  

Duke of Madness Motors: Through ignorance or spite, trump will continue to destroy norms of government and civil society. And remember that this is why Republicans voted for him.


It baffles me how he keeps getting away with it. He does *everything* ass-backwards with no end in sight. If he's done anything correctly at all, I assume it was by accident.

I've read several places that he likes to pit people against one another and I wonder if he does this on purpose or reflexively. Maybe his chaotic mind lays the groundwork for a chaotic environment around him, which then feeds back into his chaotic mind.
 
2017-11-25 07:45:21 AM  
I don't see why we need the CFPB anyways. I trust that Big Banks have my best interest in mind.
 
2017-11-25 07:49:34 AM  

tkgeisha: I don't see why we need the CFPB anyways. I trust that Big Banks have my best interest in mind.


For those with busted detectors, this is sarcasm.
 
2017-11-25 08:32:49 AM  

jjorsett: Wretschko: fusillade762: the Federal Vacancies Act allows the president to install a temporary acting head of any executive agency who has already been confirmed by the Senate to another position

Kinda makes a mockery of the Senate confirmation process. "All right, we deem you to be acceptable to run the Department of X"

"PSYCH!"

The problem is that the CFPB is an independent agency, not an executive one.

The CFPB is one of the most powerful tools that every-day American people can utilize to fight Big Business/Banks and their rip-off schemes, whether it's predatory payday loans, mortgages, car loans, or credit cards.

And Mulvaney gets to remain as head of the OMB...WTF?! Seriously, FARK Trump!

It's funny how some people can't see the problem with having an agency that 's a law unto itself. The CFPB was constructed to be completely insulated from accountability to anyone. It's even funded by the Federal Reserve, meaning the neither the executive nor legislative branches exercise any control or oversight.

Fortunately, the courts have ruled its makeup unconstitutional, and it'll have to be restructured even if it survives in some form.


That's not what the PHH decision mandated. Rather, it invalidated the "for cause" clause in Dodd-Frank related to the CFPB director's removal (essentially making it more executive-agency-like).

/ works in consumer finance compliance, but actually approves of the CFPB and its work
// the overly-broad interpretation of UDAAP is the only thing keeping a lot of companies in check.
/// Regulation by enforcement is a shiatty way to do business, but in absence of better laws, it's what we are stuck with
 
2017-11-25 09:01:18 AM  

DubyaHater: -Director of Consumer Protection Bureau leaves
-Trump appoints acting director whose beliefs are antithetical to the department he's running
-Trump never names another person to be confirmed
-GOP continues to not give a shiat
-just another day that ends in "y"


I'll be honest, that sounds bad but compared to what he could do if he got one of his "burn it to the ground" directors actually confirmed by the senate... kiss that agency goodbye well beyond 2020. Atleast if it's an acting director, they get to pack up their desk with trump in 2020. Mind you, the current situation is better with the deputy director, except when courts uphold the current status, trump and the republicans will push a party line simple majority vote and seat an actual director before they loose their majority in the senate, because it's something that democrats won't be able to touch for years like the Supreme Court.
 
2017-11-25 09:01:46 AM  

Magruda: I'm sorry but after the Great Depression I was under the correct assumption that there were no financial crises until late 1970s thanks to the Nee Deal regulation


with respect to the new deal, I think that hypothesis is unproven. I suspect the lack of crises may also have a lot to do with the rest of the world's great economies being bombed back to the stone age during wwii. It took a long time for them to get better and finally give us any competition.
 
2017-11-25 09:03:51 AM  
It's too bad Charlie Manson's dead, he would have made a great director of Health and Human Services.
 
2017-11-25 09:06:17 AM  

rockspin: jjorsett: Wretschko: fusillade762: the Federal Vacancies Act allows the president to install a temporary acting head of any executive agency who has already been confirmed by the Senate to another position

Kinda makes a mockery of the Senate confirmation process. "All right, we deem you to be acceptable to run the Department of X"

"PSYCH!"

The problem is that the CFPB is an independent agency, not an executive one.

The CFPB is one of the most powerful tools that every-day American people can utilize to fight Big Business/Banks and their rip-off schemes, whether it's predatory payday loans, mortgages, car loans, or credit cards.

And Mulvaney gets to remain as head of the OMB...WTF?! Seriously, FARK Trump!

It's funny how some people can't see the problem with having an agency that 's a law unto itself. The CFPB was constructed to be completely insulated from accountability to anyone. It's even funded by the Federal Reserve, meaning the neither the executive nor legislative branches exercise any control or oversight.

Fortunately, the courts have ruled its makeup unconstitutional, and it'll have to be restructured even if it survives in some form.

That's not what the PHH decision mandated. Rather, it invalidated the "for cause" clause in Dodd-Frank related to the CFPB director's removal (essentially making it more executive-agency-like).

/ works in consumer finance compliance, but actually approves of the CFPB and its work
// the overly-broad interpretation of UDAAP is the only thing keeping a lot of companies in check.
/// Regulation by enforcement is a shiatty way to do business, but in absence of better laws, it's what we are stuck with


THIS

The CFPB has been an extremely effective advocate in behalf of individual consumers, recovering-and returning-hundreds of billions of dollars in illicit fees, service charges, inappropriate interest rates, and other harmful practices. And by means of the way the agency was created and by regulating through enforcement actions they have avoided being hamstrung by a Congress and administration beholden to lobbyists as well as regulatory capture by the coroporations they hold in check.

So, of course, Donnie Deadbeat and the GOP want to kill it with fire.
 
2017-11-25 09:11:06 AM  

jjorsett: Wretschko: fusillade762: the Federal Vacancies Act allows the president to install a temporary acting head of any executive agency who has already been confirmed by the Senate to another position

Kinda makes a mockery of the Senate confirmation process. "All right, we deem you to be acceptable to run the Department of X"

"PSYCH!"

The problem is that the CFPB is an independent agency, not an executive one.

The CFPB is one of the most powerful tools that every-day American people can utilize to fight Big Business/Banks and their rip-off schemes, whether it's predatory payday loans, mortgages, car loans, or credit cards.

And Mulvaney gets to remain as head of the OMB...WTF?! Seriously, FARK Trump!

It's funny how some people can't see the problem with having an agency that 's a law unto itself. The CFPB was constructed to be completely insulated from accountability to anyone. It's even funded by the Federal Reserve, meaning the neither the executive nor legislative branches exercise any control or oversight.

Fortunately, the courts have ruled its makeup unconstitutional, and it'll have to be restructured even if it survives in some form.


Citation. Please.
 
2017-11-25 09:20:41 AM  

BunkyBrewman: jjorsett: Wretschko: fusillade762: the Federal Vacancies Act allows the president to install a temporary acting head of any executive agency who has already been confirmed by the Senate to another position

Kinda makes a mockery of the Senate confirmation process. "All right, we deem you to be acceptable to run the Department of X"

"PSYCH!"

The problem is that the CFPB is an independent agency, not an executive one.

The CFPB is one of the most powerful tools that every-day American people can utilize to fight Big Business/Banks and their rip-off schemes, whether it's predatory payday loans, mortgages, car loans, or credit cards.

And Mulvaney gets to remain as head of the OMB...WTF?! Seriously, FARK Trump!

It's funny how some people can't see the problem with having an agency that 's a law unto itself. The CFPB was constructed to be completely insulated from accountability to anyone. It's even funded by the Federal Reserve, meaning the neither the executive nor legislative branches exercise any control or oversight.

Fortunately, the courts have ruled its makeup unconstitutional, and it'll have to be restructured even if it survives in some form.

Citation. Please.


Randomly seeing that quote about a previous court ruling on stories about this on Facebook.  I'm going to say the source is Russian troll farms.
 
2017-11-25 09:27:18 AM  

Blathering Idjut: BunkyBrewman: jjorsett: Wretschko: fusillade762: the Federal Vacancies Act allows the president to install a temporary acting head of any executive agency who has already been confirmed by the Senate to another position

Kinda makes a mockery of the Senate confirmation process. "All right, we deem you to be acceptable to run the Department of X"

"PSYCH!"

The problem is that the CFPB is an independent agency, not an executive one.

The CFPB is one of the most powerful tools that every-day American people can utilize to fight Big Business/Banks and their rip-off schemes, whether it's predatory payday loans, mortgages, car loans, or credit cards.

And Mulvaney gets to remain as head of the OMB...WTF?! Seriously, FARK Trump!

It's funny how some people can't see the problem with having an agency that 's a law unto itself. The CFPB was constructed to be completely insulated from accountability to anyone. It's even funded by the Federal Reserve, meaning the neither the executive nor legislative branches exercise any control or oversight.

Fortunately, the courts have ruled its makeup unconstitutional, and it'll have to be restructured even if it survives in some form.

Citation. Please.

Randomly seeing that quote about a previous court ruling on stories about this on Facebook.  I'm going to say the source is Russian troll farms.


He or she is referencing PHH v. CFPB out of the DC Circuit. That said, he or she is misstating the holding.
 
2017-11-25 09:28:41 AM  
Doh. Not the holding, rather misstating the effects of the holding.
 
2017-11-25 09:32:25 AM  
If the head of the American Financial Services Association, which represents payday lenders, doesn't like the CFPB, then it's doing it's job.
But, since they donate to Trump, I'm sure they'll get to help write it's laws and the  rest of us will get shafted. Next time Wells Fargo sets up accounts under our names, they'll charge us for the privilege.
Payday lenders will be able to change our interest rates during the course of the loan.
 
2017-11-25 09:46:36 AM  
Theoretically, Trump could make Mulvaney the head of every federal department.  He's already been approved by the Senate so he doesn't have to go through that again.  He just has to appoint (not needing Senate approval) a bunch of flunkies to run the place then he moves on to the next department.
 
2017-11-25 10:06:09 AM  

Shaggy_C: Magruda: Shaggy_C: Magruda: Shaggy_C: Magruda: So we going for a financial crisis every ten years now? Just like we used to do with wars until the last one became permanent.

It's a little longer than every decade. 1980, 1990, 2001, 2007...Been that way for a long time.

[img.fark.net image 401x577]
So you get my point you just don't like that I rounded the number?

Sorry, not what I meant. It was more that the human condition is one of boom and bust, so the best we can really hope for is a crash every few years. We might be able to stretch it out a little longer sometimes but all that does is make the crashes that much harder. Trump's lack of regulatory oversight will just add fuel to the flames but it's not like having a different president would make much of a difference in the longer term macro sense.

I'm sorry but after the Great Depression I was under the correct assumption that there were no financial crises until late 1970s thanks to the Nee Deal regulation

Remember, there were no financial crashes in the '50s and the '60s, because the regulatory apparatus of the New Deal was still in place. As it began to be dismantled under business pressure and political pressure, you get more and more crashes, and it goes on right through the years - the '70s is where deregulation starts, and the '80s is where crashes really take off..

I guess it depends on your definition of crisis; we did have the recessions of 1949, 1953, 1958, 1960, 1969, and 1973, and the 70s-era stagflation was a serious financial issue despite not having a clearly New Deal cause. I would argue the move away from the gold standard has had far more to do with he extremes of the boom bust cycle than anything the idiots in congress have done.


Um....

The gold standard wasn't any less volatile. Data ain't that good, but by and large the economy wasn't stable.
 
2017-11-25 10:07:43 AM  
Alright class, does anyone know the difference between "shall" and "may"?
 
2017-11-25 10:11:40 AM  

RINO: That ruling was appealed and will be overturned as soon as its hears, since it would mean that the Social Security Administration, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Office of Special Counsel are also unconstitutional, since they are set up the same way.


There are a lot of Federal agencies that are Independent in structure like that:

The Postal Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Postal Service
The Securities and Exchange Commission
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The Federal Reserve Board of Governors
The Federal Trade Commission
The Federal Communications Commission
The General Services Administration
The Central Intelligence Agency
The National Archives and Records Administration

. . .basically trying to get Independent agencies banned by court order would get rid of the ability of agencies to be largely independent of Executive meddling, a process created to insulate the operation of key parts of government from political interference.

. . .and that's why I'm sure the Republicans are going for it.
 
2017-11-25 10:14:55 AM  

Magruda: Shaggy_C: Magruda: Shaggy_C: Magruda: So we going for a financial crisis every ten years now? Just like we used to do with wars until the last one became permanent.

It's a little longer than every decade. 1980, 1990, 2001, 2007...Been that way for a long time.

[img.fark.net image 401x577]
So you get my point you just don't like that I rounded the number?

Sorry, not what I meant. It was more that the human condition is one of boom and bust, so the best we can really hope for is a crash every few years. We might be able to stretch it out a little longer sometimes but all that does is make the crashes that much harder. Trump's lack of regulatory oversight will just add fuel to the flames but it's not like having a different president would make much of a difference in the longer term macro sense.

I'm sorry but after the Great Depression I was under the correct assumption that there were no financial crises until late 1970s thanks to the Nee Deal regulation

Remember, there were no financial crashes in the '50s and the '60s, because the regulatory apparatus of the New Deal was still in place. As it began to be dismantled under business pressure and political pressure, you get more and more crashes, and it goes on right through the years - the '70s is where deregulation starts, and the '80s is where crashes really take off..


As if WW2 never happened and America was the least damaged nation. As if the boon from having America remanufacture the world had no affect.

Yup, it was all FDR's rules on tossing grapes in the trash that saved us.
 
2017-11-25 10:41:33 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-25 10:50:44 AM  

Mrbogey: Alright class, does anyone know the difference between "shall" and "may"?


Ask and ye shall receive...
 
2017-11-25 11:01:27 AM  

fusillade762: the Federal Vacancies Act allows the president to install a temporary acting head of any executive agency who has already been confirmed by the Senate to another position

Kinda makes a mockery of the Senate confirmation process. "All right, we deem you to be acceptable to run the Department of X"

"PSYCH!"


Good thing the Senate never voted to pass such an act.
 
2017-11-25 11:01:29 AM  

Mrbogey: Alright class, does anyone know the difference between "shall" and "may"?


I shall
In May
A dance
Display
My toes, a rose. ole!
 
2017-11-25 11:41:53 AM  

intensive porpoise: The gold standard wasn't any less volatile. Data ain't that good, but by and large the economy wasn't stable.


It's good enough. Starting in 1819, the US saw a series of severe financial panics followed by wrenching depressions. Financial panics are a natural outgrowth of unregulated capitalism.

The gold bugs don't understand that gold does nothing to mitigate that b/c they don't actually understand how money works.
 
2017-11-25 12:50:03 PM  
First in time, you orange biatch.

/there was no vacancy at the time, donnie
 
2017-11-25 01:01:41 PM  

intensive porpoise: Shaggy_C: Magruda: Shaggy_C: Magruda: Shaggy_C: Magruda: So we going for a financial crisis every ten years now? Just like we used to do with wars until the last one became permanent.

It's a little longer than every decade. 1980, 1990, 2001, 2007...Been that way for a long time.

[img.fark.net image 401x577]
So you get my point you just don't like that I rounded the number?

Sorry, not what I meant. It was more that the human condition is one of boom and bust, so the best we can really hope for is a crash every few years. We might be able to stretch it out a little longer sometimes but all that does is make the crashes that much harder. Trump's lack of regulatory oversight will just add fuel to the flames but it's not like having a different president would make much of a difference in the longer term macro sense.

I'm sorry but after the Great Depression I was under the correct assumption that there were no financial crises until late 1970s thanks to the Nee Deal regulation

Remember, there were no financial crashes in the '50s and the '60s, because the regulatory apparatus of the New Deal was still in place. As it began to be dismantled under business pressure and political pressure, you get more and more crashes, and it goes on right through the years - the '70s is where deregulation starts, and the '80s is where crashes really take off..

I guess it depends on your definition of crisis; we did have the recessions of 1949, 1953, 1958, 1960, 1969, and 1973, and the 70s-era stagflation was a serious financial issue despite not having a clearly New Deal cause. I would argue the move away from the gold standard has had far more to do with he extremes of the boom bust cycle than anything the idiots in congress have done.

Um....

The gold standard wasn't any less volatile. Data ain't that good, but by and large the economy wasn't stable.


See, e.g., the Panics of 1873 and 1893.
 
2017-11-25 01:08:39 PM  

eiger: intensive porpoise: The gold standard wasn't any less volatile. Data ain't that good, but by and large the economy wasn't stable.

It's good enough. Starting in 1819, the US saw a series of severe financial panics followed by wrenching depressions. Financial panics are a natural outgrowth of unregulated capitalism.

The gold bugs don't understand that gold does nothing to mitigate that b/c they don't actually understand how money works.


Yep. Which is why capitalism only works with strict government regulations. Otherwise, you have a system motivated purely by short-sighted greed that will, like every other system where greed rules, inevitably collapse in on itself. Maybe when they get too greedy and fark up the stability of the economy, or maybe when the poor people get sick of being shat on and realize that they outnumber the wealthy by millions to one.

It's like the separation of church and state. Government regulations on business protect the business just as much as they protect the people FROM the business.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report