Dodd-Frank update on Volcker rule

[JuliefromOhio]

‘Volcker rule’ ban on risky trades passed by regulators (BBC)
All five US financial regulators have approved the Volcker rule, designed to restrict the finance industry in the wake of the 2008-09 financial collapse.
Named after former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, it bans banks from using their own funds for trading activities.
It is considered the centerpiece of the 2010 banking reform legislation known as Dodd-Frank. Banks will have until July, 2015 to comply with the rules.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Maybe this time, we'll manage a bit longer institutional memory of why we put these regulations into place to begin with.

I'm all for the federal government guaranteeing my bank deposits, but my government shouldn't have to guarantee that the bankers will be protected from losses should they choose to gamble with those same deposits.

 

[fairsheet]

In retrospect, the Volcker Rule seems to make so much sense.......

Oh well....I think I heard that Volcker was like a commie or something.

 

[NightSwimmer]

In retrospect, the Volcker Rule seems to make so much sense.......

Oh well....I think I heard that Volcker was like a commie or something.

Prolly... He just doesn't understand the principles of the free pyramid market.

 

[fairsheet]

Prolly... He just doesn't understand the principles of the free pyramid market.

I don't even know enough about banking to be dangerous but.....It struck me awhile back when I read that the "business of banking" has traditionally represented aobut 20% of our economy, but that over the last couple of decades, its grown to consume about 30%. One might think that banking would've benefitted as much as anything, from computerization. Obviously then, their "annual sales" haven't risen as a function of there cost basis - on what they traditionally did, increasing.

Of course when all this banking de-reg-you-lation and and other assorted banking laxity was originally being pitched, it was on the suggestion that it would benefit our economy as a whole. That's all well and good but.....in order to've fulfilled its "promise", it should've been able to do so while still consuming but 20% of our economy. Albeit with that 20% representing a larger number.

It's unreasonable of us to expect that we can go from 30% back to 20% "overnight". Even if that was politically tenable, nothing good would come of it. BUT...we should set ourselves a longer term of goal of getting back closer to that 20% number.

 

[Sgt Staples]

‘Volcker rule’ ban on risky trades passed by regulators (BBC)
All five US financial regulators have approved the Volcker rule, designed to restrict the finance industry in the wake of the 2008-09 financial collapse.
Named after former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, it bans banks from using their own funds for trading activities.
It is considered the centerpiece of the 2010 banking reform legislation known as Dodd-Frank. Banks will have until July, 2015 to comply with the rules.

This rule will be fought out in the courts as it definitely is Un-Constituional. The collapse partially involved banks investing other people's funds, not their own. This states that banks can't invest their OWN money which the government can't do. It can't tell anyone that they can't invest in any legal investment with their own money.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

This rule will be fought out in the courts as it definitely is Un-Constituional. The collapse partially involved banks investing other people's funds, not their own. This states that banks can't invest their OWN money which the government can't do. It can't tell anyone that they can't invest in any legal investment with their own money.

don't listen to your rightwing radio hosts. they know jackshit about the Volcker rule.
btw, how much did you lose in the great Bush/repub econ collapse and have you recouped it thanks to Pres Obama?

 

[NightSwimmer]

This rule will be fought out in the courts as it definitely is Un-Constituional. The collapse partially involved banks investing other people's funds, not their own. This states that banks can't invest their OWN money which the government can't do. It can't tell anyone that they can't invest in any legal investment with their own money.

Since when is the money that I deposit in my bank account the property of the bank?

 

[Sgt Staples]

don't listen to your rightwing radio hosts. they know jackshit about the Volcker rule.
btw, how much did you lose in the great Bush/repub econ collapse and have you recouped it thanks to Pres Obama?

Thanks to Obama? Hell him and his democrats are devaluing the currency, it takes twice as much of it to buy a gallon of gas or a hamburger.

And he and his Democrat party are the ones that created the sub prime mess and who are in bed with wall street, printing money to keep it up in the failing economy.

Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it, and that is exactly what's happening now.

And your post doesn't begin to answer my statement that it is unconstitutional for the government to tell anyone what to do with his or her money when making legal investments.

 

[Sgt Staples]

Since when is the money that I deposit in my bank account the property of the bank?

It isn't
The money that it earns above what the bank pays you is the property of the bank and those are the funds which are the subject of my statement.

Just like any money a mutual fund charges you is the property of that mutual fund which is the property of the entity that issues the fund.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Thanks to Obama? Hell him and his democrats are devaluing the currency, it takes twice as much of it to buy a gallon of gas or a hamburger.

And he and his Democrat party are the ones that created the sub prime mess and who are in bed with wall street, printing money to keep it up in the failing economy.

Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it, and that is exactly what's happening now.

And your post doesn't begin to answer my statement that it is unconstitutional for the government to tell anyone what to do with his or her money when making legal investments.

LOL. your h.s. grad rightwing talk radio hosts are filling your head with crap. so you don't have the guts to tell me how much you lost in the Great Republican/Bush econ collapse OR you had no investments at all? which is it?

 

[fairsheet]

Actually Staples is right, in terms of any and all banks that exist operate entirely outside any guvmint sanction, regulation, protection, or indemnification. Although....such a bank - should one exist - might have issues with RICO!