Quote from: DooMAD on February 20, 2017, 01:56:51 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on February 20, 2017, 12:49:28 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on February 20, 2017, 11:01:24 AM

You don't buy that there were unsound and unsafe banking practices that led to the 2008 crash? Or you don't buy that the law curbs some of those risks? You're defending a move which is clearly profitable for bankers and increases the risk of casino-style banking and the threat of future bailouts/bailins. Incontrovertibly, not having to pay for the mistakes of the finance sector is in the benefit of the little man. If you have any dealings in fiat, it's in your benefit not to pay for those mistakes either.

I'm not saying Dodd-Frank was perfect, by any means, but opening the floodgates to irresponsible lending, reckless derivatives speculation, corruption and general instability is dumb.
.....

Assuming that a large and complex piece of legislation written by bankers for bankers has any relation at all to the bolded above is really not logical. Think about it. How many bankers went to jail? Why?

America's inability to prosecute bankers isn't in question. We know that's never going to change regardless of what regulatory measures are or aren't in place. Although to answer your question, some argue it's around 35, but Dodd-Frank probably wasn't pertinent to all of them. Sure, if more punitive measures had been involved in drafting that legislation, more banksters would be locked up. And some critics did complain that the law didn't go far enough in that regard. But how the immoral activities are punished isn't the question here. It's how you define which activities are permissible and which aren't permissible to begin with. That emphasis will now shift because the focus is now on keeping the money flowing at all costs, whereas before it was keeping the money flowing while taking safe practices into consideration. Repealing the legislation means a greater number of questionable practices will be deemed permissible than before. Complexity and authorship aside, this is a dangerous change in ethos.

Also, don't pretend for a second that the puppetmasters behind this deregulation aren't banksters:

Quote

The president had praise for Jamie Dimon, whose bank, JPMorgan Chase, was often a target of regulatory actions by the Obama administration.
Theres nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than Jamie, so youre going to tell me about it, Mr. Trump said.

The meeting underscored the degree to which the architects of Mr. Trumps economic strategy are now some of the people he denounced in his campaign, which ended with a commercial that described a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations.

The advertisement flashed an image of the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, which has become a virtual feeder for top Trump administration officials. Steven Mnuchin, his nominee for Treasury secretary; Gary Cohn, the chairman of his national economic council; and Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trumps chief strategist, all had worked at Goldman.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/business/dealbook/trump-congress-financial-regulations.html

Quite literally, the lunatics are taking over the asylum. The banksters call the shots now. Yet you cry that banksters wrote the legislation, so getting rid of it must be great. Even though it's banksters getting rid of it? Yeah, sounds logical. Roll Eyes

You are making things up. I'm not crying.

I'm suggesting that your advocacy of the goodness of Dodd-Frank if not without any factual basis, is too strong to be credible.