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
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: (I'll regret this) starting around 1970, black wages started to rise and white wages started to fall [View all]Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)134. The diminishing of and eventual removal of Glass Steagall legalized drinking while driving.
(snip)
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: So, Glass-Steagall wasagain, after the Great Depression, we divided the banks into two groups: the commercial banks, that take your deposits, ordinary people, supposed to give money to small businesses to help grow the economy; and then you had the investment banks, taking money from rich people, investing it in more speculative activities. And we had a big fight during the Clinton administration over whether we should eliminate that division. I strongly opposed it. And when was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, it didnt happen.
AMY GOODMAN: Under Clinton.
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Under Clinton. But then, insteadyou know, Citibank wanted to bring together these various financial institutions, and
AMY GOODMAN: Who surround Clinton.
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: And the result of that was that we repealed Glass-Steagall. And what I was worried about precisely happened. We wound up with bigger banks that became too big to fail. The culture of risk taking, thats associated with the investment bank, spread to the whole banking system, and so all the banks became speculators, actually lending to small businesses lower than it was before the crisis. And the kinds of conflicts of interest that were rampant in the years before the Great Depression started to appear all over the place in our financial sector.
AMY GOODMAN: So Bernie Sanders has called for the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. Hillary Clinton has not.
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah, I hope that she will. But I think the fundamental issue here is, we have to tame the financial sector. And in our book, Rewriting the Rules, we describe how that can be done.
AMY GOODMAN: How, exactly?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, there are many things. Glass-Steagall is one approach that Ive increasingly come to. We actually dont talk about it in the book. There are some other ways that we do focus on, on things like curbing their excessive risk taking.
One of the important things that people havent realized is, every time they use their debit card, merchants pay a significant price for their use. Its like a tax on every transaction. But its a tax that doesnt go for public purpose; it goes to enrich the coffers of the credit card companies, the debit card companies. We were supposed to curtail theone part of that in the debit card. It was called the Durbin Amendment to Dodd-Frank. But we delegated it to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserves staff recommended a feethat I thought was excessiveand then the Federal Reserve doubled the fee that they had recommended. So, its much better than it was before Dodd-Frank, but its still a tax on every transaction, a tax that winds up being paid for by everybody who buys any good in our economy. So thats an example of how you transfer money from ordinary individuals to the financial sector. And its one of the reasons why the financial sector is making so much money and the rest of us are paying the price.
One other example that President Obama has emphasized is, you know, people have savings accounts, a varietyIRAs. And the question is, when you put your money in an IRA, does the person whos supposed to manage that have a fiduciary responsibility? That is to say, can he manage it for his own interest, turning it over and getting a lot of commission, or does he have a responsibility, a fiduciary responsibility, to manage it in your interest? Now, you would say, obviously, he should have that fiduciary responsibility. But the banks are resisting imposing that as a condition. And the result of not having that is that the banks are making billions and billions, tens of billions of dollars every year more than they otherwise would.
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/10/27/nobel_laureate_joseph_stiglitz_on_rewriting
The The Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000 which Bill Clinton and many of his top Wall Street Advisers promoted removed the speed limits.
And she's right. But here's what she didn't say: Not only did President Bill Clinton sign that bill into law, but key officials in his administration were also credited with helping to craft it.
The Sunlight Foundation, as part of their "Read the Bill" effort to demystify the legislative process explained it this way:
Leading the charge in Congress were Sens. Phil Gramm (R-TX) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Rep. Thomas Ewing (R-IL). In May of 2000, Rep. Ewing introduced his Commodity Futures Modernization Act. While Ewings bill sailed quickly through the House, it stalled in the Senate, as Sen. Gramm desired stricter deregulatory language be inserted into the bill. Gramm opposed any language that could provide the SEC or the CFTC with any hope of authority in regulating or oversight of financial derivatives and swaps. Gramms opposition held the bill in limbo until Congress went into recess for the 2000 election.
Throughout the better part of the year Gramm, Lugar and Ewing worked with the Presidents Working Group on Financial Marketsmost specifically, Treasury Secretary [Larry] Summers, CFTC Chairman [William[ Rainer and SEC Chairman [Arthur] Levittto strike a deal on the bill.
The final version of the bill included stronger deregulatory language, but it isn't clear whether many lawmakers knew that it was in there. (This was around the time that the country was embroiled in a contentious presidential vote recount in Florida.)
The CFMA made its way through Congress on the back of a must-pass, 11,000-page bill to fund the government that year. This is where Sanders comes in, he joined a majority of Democrats and Republicans in approving the omnibus bill, which was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/18/hillary-clinton-attacked-bernie-sanders-for-voting-for-a-bill-her-husband-signed-into-law/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
187 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
(I'll regret this) starting around 1970, black wages started to rise and white wages started to fall [View all]
Recursion
Feb 2016
OP
Most won't get it. I really know what you are saying...and so does Bernie. nt
Jitter65
Feb 2016
#184
I think I could get behind that. Could make it a hell of a lot harder for discrimination to happen.
Bubzer
Feb 2016
#140
for that matter white males' wages and incomes have gone down, while everyone else's have gone up
think
Feb 2016
#9
Look at how much CEO pay escalated under Bill Clinton compared to their average workers of all races
Uncle Joe
Feb 2016
#11
Obviously you don't, "look at the big picture" how much black wealth was lost due to Clinton's
Uncle Joe
Feb 2016
#16
Glass Steagel had little to do with unrestricted commodities!!! Its like blaming drunk driver deaths
uponit7771
Feb 2016
#65
The diminishing of and eventual removal of Glass Steagall legalized drinking while driving.
Uncle Joe
Feb 2016
#134
OK, that's pretty close... but the CFMA legalized being DRUNK while driving because it took off
uponit7771
Feb 2016
#135
So does Bernie, he wants to break up the monopolized banks which have become even larger and thus
Uncle Joe
Feb 2016
#141
The "Big Banks" weren't involved, they stood by and said little but it wasn't BOA it was GS
uponit7771
Feb 2016
#142
The diminishing and removal of Glass Steagall was a multiplier of the crisis which wiped out a
Uncle Joe
Feb 2016
#146
CFMA allowed for unlimited leveraging, they didn't need Steagal to do that.. CFMA had worse effect
uponit7771
Feb 2016
#149
What you posted has nothing to do with the positive sound effect of Glass Steagall
Uncle Joe
Feb 2016
#136
Isn't it necessary to look at a particular demographic's income relative to other incomes
LanternWaste
Feb 2016
#144
Ya funny the title of your post says Black Incomes started to rise and White incomes fell
CentralMass
Feb 2016
#59
That is simply not true. Nearly everybody in the lower and middle classes is poorer today.
Live and Learn
Feb 2016
#17
In buying power? Hardly. Perhpas you could point us to where you are getting your false stats. nt
Live and Learn
Feb 2016
#21
Just saying something is true doesn't make it true. The stats speak the truth.
Live and Learn
Feb 2016
#30
The key term is 'over the last 40 years'. As long as it's framed over 40 years he is correct
think
Feb 2016
#36
I addressed that part of it below. The fact is that he is trying to give false impressions of the
Live and Learn
Feb 2016
#38
Why do this? Everyone's wages have stagnated. Nice can of gasoline you have there...
myrna minx
Feb 2016
#19
It is absolutely not true that "everyone's" wages and incomes have stagnated in the past 40 years
Recursion
Feb 2016
#20
Post links or else this is nothing more than speculation on your part. n/t
Stand and Fight
Feb 2016
#22
How did I attempt to malign it? It was a simple observation made and one that might explain your
Live and Learn
Feb 2016
#35
What fucking "assumptions" do you think I have picked up over the past 2 years?
Recursion
Feb 2016
#37
Simply what you stated, that minority and women's wages are increasing and white mens are decreasing
Live and Learn
Feb 2016
#40
Those aren't assumptions, those are facts, and I knew them before I went here
Recursion
Feb 2016
#42
Do you know what insinuation means? Because your post is guilty of insinuating falsehoods.
Live and Learn
Feb 2016
#44
Well then, your OP is simply silly and irrelevant to anything in GDP. How does this reflect on the
Live and Learn
Feb 2016
#54
Wages & income equality have fallen for minorities in the past ten years. Do you dispute that?
think
Feb 2016
#81
I love the modern DU. Catch a jury of the "right" people and you can say fuck you to anyone
CBGLuthier
Feb 2016
#100
Of course the 70's were better for minorities thanks to the 60's civil rights movements and
Live and Learn
Feb 2016
#32
White people's incomes have not fallen. Black people have not closed the wage gap, it has increased.
DemocraticWing
Feb 2016
#55
The person who associates his campaign with someone who calls Obama "n-word-izzed"? tia
uponit7771
Feb 2016
#66
Yes, but I don't know about spelling out the word... I don't know if its against TOS
uponit7771
Feb 2016
#139
well I intended no offense but I did want to put the entire comment in which he used the word
azurnoir
Feb 2016
#158
were you offended West's words that Obama had not done enough for the Black community?
azurnoir
Feb 2016
#163
Yes, its more unfair bashing of Obama to gen favor among the establishment and that's how Sanders
uponit7771
Feb 2016
#164
saying that Obama hasn't done enough for the Black community will gain favor with the establishment?
azurnoir
Feb 2016
#166
Cause among the marginalized it sounds like West is full of crap, he's not saying that in front
uponit7771
Feb 2016
#168
so you feel that Obama has done enough for the Black community and already had at the time of Wests
azurnoir
Feb 2016
#169
Yes, I sure do.. being president and being an upstanding moral person that has done more to break
uponit7771
Feb 2016
#170
West was about institutionalized racism and despite all the words I've seen here about that
azurnoir
Feb 2016
#171
Strawman, ... your question was has Obama done enough I said sure... I don't see how
uponit7771
Feb 2016
#174
my question concerned Wests comments which pertained to institutionalized racism
azurnoir
Feb 2016
#175
West called Obama "n-word-izzed" because he said Obama was afraid to talk about White Supremcy
uponit7771
Feb 2016
#181
The past three decades have seen the largest decreases in global inequality in human history
Recursion
Feb 2016
#92
By definition they stayed the same since this is real (inflation-adjusted) income
Recursion
Feb 2016
#185
A Decade of Flat Wages: The Key Barrier to Shared Prosperity and a Rising Middle Class
Bluenorthwest
Feb 2016
#98
I am referring to how nonsensical the 98 percent white and male discontent are conflated
Armstead
Feb 2016
#120
You may be in the wrong thread? I certainly don't think "only white males" support Sanders
Recursion
Feb 2016
#122
so tell us do you have to post this kind of stuff 7 more times to be fully vested?
azurnoir
Feb 2016
#109
I do think so, though I think most don't realize that is the actual outcome they are cheering for
Recursion
Feb 2016
#111
Seems to me that white males are overrepresented in the "1%". Their wages/salaries have skyrocketed.
cherokeeprogressive
Feb 2016
#104
Mom working, dad working, kids working, still not making as much as one person did 30 years ago
Cheese Sandwich
Feb 2016
#106
That's why I'm a socialist. Capitalism forces workers to compete for survival.
Cheese Sandwich
Feb 2016
#133
Rocket science: The typical white household is almost 13 times richer than the typical black family.
Octafish
Feb 2016
#116
bullshit. I am a woman. I still make less than a man. Give me my whole damn dollar.
Hiraeth
Feb 2016
#128