Ocasio-Cortez set to join House Financial Services Committee - Polidicks

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-16/ocasio-cortez-is-poised-to-join-panel-that-oversees-wall-street Rahida Tlaib, Tulsi Gabbard, and Katie Porter are also joining the committee, which oversees Wall Street and the banks

so more banking deregulation right?

I'm not sure why you think Ocasio-Cortez would deregulate the banks and loosen their leashes even more than designated swamp creatures the Trump administration has in the last two years. I would hope that we see her push for greater regulations to recover some of the surrendered power and lost oversight given up under the Orange's hand, whether or not those regulations have a chance in the senate.

Can't wait to see all the conservatives get triggered by the "dumb as rocks" AOC put in charge on money and finance.

You don't need greater regulations, you just need to pull the banks out of congress. Left on their own, they will either go under or adapt to the market instead of doing what they want and getting bailed out by the taxpayer.

We need more regulations tho. Consumer and Investment banks shouldn't be in the same company

Why not?

How long is this going to turn into "BUT COMMUNISM" argument again? Cause i imagine its going to given your post history.

The case for reviving Glass-Steagall is based on two different premises. The first is a general opposition to concentrated economic and political power that is normally associated with anti-monopoly thinking. In recent months, economists and policymakers across the ideological spectrum have grown more and more convinced that concentrated markets across a variety of sectors are damaging the country’s economic wellbeing. As applied to the financial sector, these fears were ahead of their time. The 2008 crash focused attention on the ballooning size of the big banks, and solutions, like Glass-Steagall and capping the size of banks, were widely debated. The second premise is that we should break up big financial institutions by separating their functions, rather than by capping their size (though it is not necessarily inconsistent to support both – and some proponents of Glass-Steagall do). There are many reasons to desire a financial sector that is fractured by function. Separation means government guarantees won’t cross-subsidize risky business lines. It can help reduce the risk of contagion – of a business infected with bad bets taking down the entire financial system. It will also make firms smaller (though it would still be possible to become large within a single business line). Together these factors make the financial system less susceptible to systemic risk.

The concept of a bank being just allowed to do loans and savings is somehow too conservative for conservatives. Ya I get everybody is afraid of touching the capital markets but consumers are the last to benefit from risky investments and the first to be screwed by their investments. Stock pressure pushed Wells Fargo to do all the shitty things THEY'RE STILL DOING just because they had to have quarter over quarter growth

But isn't limiting size and function the wrong way to go about it? Shouldn't we first be asking "How did a bank get this big"?

It got that big because the investment banks bought up the commercial banks. Which is what the glass steagall act seeks to prevent http://2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33yj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/bank-consolidation.jpg

I see.

This looks like a tournament bracket from a dystopian cyberpunk world.

So long as she doesn't impede the efforts of FINRA and the SEC I am A-OK with this.