Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: STOCK MARKET WATCH -- Tuesday, 5 February 2013 [View all]Demeter
(85,373 posts)2. Friends of Fraud By PAUL KRUGMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/opinion/krugman-friends-of-fraud.html?_r=0
Like many advocates of financial reform, I was a bit disappointed in the bill that finally emerged. Dodd-Frank gave regulators the power to rein in many financial excesses; but it was and is less clear that future regulators will use that power. As history shows, the financial industrys wealth and influence can all too easily turn those who are supposed to serve as watchdogs into lap dogs instead. There was, however, one piece of the reform that was a shining example of how to do it right: the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a stand-alone agency with its own funding, charged with protecting consumers against financial fraud and abuse. And sure enough, Senate Republicans are going all out in an attempt to kill that bureau.
Why is consumer financial protection necessary? Because fraud and abuse happen.
Dont say that educated and informed consumers can take care of themselves. For one thing, not all consumers are educated and informed. Edward Gramlich, the Federal Reserve official who warned in vain about the dangers of subprime, famously asked, Why are the most risky loan products sold to the least sophisticated borrowers? He went on, The question answers itself the least sophisticated borrowers are probably duped into taking these products. And even well-educated adults can have a hard time understanding the risks and payoffs associated with financial deals a fact of which shady operators are all too aware. To take an area in which the bureau has already done excellent work, how many of us know whats actually in our credit-card contracts? Now, you might be tempted to say that while we need protection against financial fraud, theres no need to create another bureaucracy. Why not leave it up to the regulators we already have? The answer is that existing regulatory agencies are basically concerned with bolstering the banks; as a practical, cultural matter they will always put consumer protection on the back burner just as they did when they ignored Mr. Gramlichs warnings about subprime.
So the consumer protection bureau serves a vital function. But as I said, Senate Republicans are trying to kill it.
How can they do that, when the reform is already law and Democrats hold a Senate majority? Here as elsewhere, theyre turning to extortion threatening to filibuster the appointment of Richard Cordray, the bureaus acting head, and thereby leave the bureau unable to function. Mr. Cordray, whose work has drawn praise even from the bankers, is clearly not the issue. Instead, its an open attempt to use raw obstructionism to overturn the law. What Republicans are demanding, basically, is that the protection bureau lose its independence. They want its actions subjected to a veto by other, bank-centered financial regulators, ensuring that consumers will once again be neglected, and they also want to take away its guaranteed funding, opening it to interest-group pressure. These changes would make the agency more or less worthless but that, of course, is the point.
How can the G.O.P. be so determined to make America safe for financial fraud, with the 2008 crisis still so fresh in our memory? In part its because Republicans are deep in denial about what actually happened to our financial system and economy. On the right, its now complete orthodoxy that do-gooder liberals, especially former Representative Barney Frank, somehow caused the financial disaster by forcing helpless bankers to lend to Those People. In reality, this is a nonsense story that has been extensively refuted; Ive always been struck in particular by the notion that a Congressional Democrat, holding office at a time when Republicans ruled the House with an iron fist, somehow had the mystical power to distort our whole banking system. But its a story conservatives much prefer to the awkward reality that their faith in the perfection of free markets was proved false. And as always, you should follow the money. Historically, the financial sector has given a lot of money to both parties, with only a modest Republican lean. In the last election, however, it went all in for Republicans, giving them more than twice as much as it gave to Democrats (and favoring Mitt Romney over the president almost three to one). All this money wasnt enough to buy an election but it was, arguably, enough to buy a major political party...
Like many advocates of financial reform, I was a bit disappointed in the bill that finally emerged. Dodd-Frank gave regulators the power to rein in many financial excesses; but it was and is less clear that future regulators will use that power. As history shows, the financial industrys wealth and influence can all too easily turn those who are supposed to serve as watchdogs into lap dogs instead. There was, however, one piece of the reform that was a shining example of how to do it right: the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a stand-alone agency with its own funding, charged with protecting consumers against financial fraud and abuse. And sure enough, Senate Republicans are going all out in an attempt to kill that bureau.
Why is consumer financial protection necessary? Because fraud and abuse happen.
Dont say that educated and informed consumers can take care of themselves. For one thing, not all consumers are educated and informed. Edward Gramlich, the Federal Reserve official who warned in vain about the dangers of subprime, famously asked, Why are the most risky loan products sold to the least sophisticated borrowers? He went on, The question answers itself the least sophisticated borrowers are probably duped into taking these products. And even well-educated adults can have a hard time understanding the risks and payoffs associated with financial deals a fact of which shady operators are all too aware. To take an area in which the bureau has already done excellent work, how many of us know whats actually in our credit-card contracts? Now, you might be tempted to say that while we need protection against financial fraud, theres no need to create another bureaucracy. Why not leave it up to the regulators we already have? The answer is that existing regulatory agencies are basically concerned with bolstering the banks; as a practical, cultural matter they will always put consumer protection on the back burner just as they did when they ignored Mr. Gramlichs warnings about subprime.
So the consumer protection bureau serves a vital function. But as I said, Senate Republicans are trying to kill it.
How can they do that, when the reform is already law and Democrats hold a Senate majority? Here as elsewhere, theyre turning to extortion threatening to filibuster the appointment of Richard Cordray, the bureaus acting head, and thereby leave the bureau unable to function. Mr. Cordray, whose work has drawn praise even from the bankers, is clearly not the issue. Instead, its an open attempt to use raw obstructionism to overturn the law. What Republicans are demanding, basically, is that the protection bureau lose its independence. They want its actions subjected to a veto by other, bank-centered financial regulators, ensuring that consumers will once again be neglected, and they also want to take away its guaranteed funding, opening it to interest-group pressure. These changes would make the agency more or less worthless but that, of course, is the point.
How can the G.O.P. be so determined to make America safe for financial fraud, with the 2008 crisis still so fresh in our memory? In part its because Republicans are deep in denial about what actually happened to our financial system and economy. On the right, its now complete orthodoxy that do-gooder liberals, especially former Representative Barney Frank, somehow caused the financial disaster by forcing helpless bankers to lend to Those People. In reality, this is a nonsense story that has been extensively refuted; Ive always been struck in particular by the notion that a Congressional Democrat, holding office at a time when Republicans ruled the House with an iron fist, somehow had the mystical power to distort our whole banking system. But its a story conservatives much prefer to the awkward reality that their faith in the perfection of free markets was proved false. And as always, you should follow the money. Historically, the financial sector has given a lot of money to both parties, with only a modest Republican lean. In the last election, however, it went all in for Republicans, giving them more than twice as much as it gave to Democrats (and favoring Mitt Romney over the president almost three to one). All this money wasnt enough to buy an election but it was, arguably, enough to buy a major political party...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
23 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Thanks For Caving On the Filibuster--Now We Can Destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Board
Demeter
Feb 2013
#3
Justice prepares civil suit against S&P over grading of financial products before crisis
xchrom
Feb 2013
#8
Egypt central bank says foreign reserves drop almost 10 percent in January to $13.6 billion
xchrom
Feb 2013
#9