I find it hard to believe that anyone not on the very extremes of politics would oppose financial reform, specifically, forbidding banks to get involved in the casino-like elements of our financial system, specifiically, derivatives, and increasing penalties for the irresponsible, possibly illegal mortgage-writing practices that the real estate industry engaged in for the last 25 years or so. Does anyone on either end of the spectrum really thing that getting rid of Glass-Steagal (which is what allowed banks to invest in derivatives, and which they are still able to do) was a good idea?
Feel free to explain the reasoning behind your choices here.
In general, Republicans think any regulation of any business is a bad thing. So they’re against any sort of regulation at all.
Of course it is.
The debate isn’t really about financial reform but instead about financial regulation. The Conservatives fight any regulation of business in almost all circumstances and fight, at least in the media, any growth and reach of government. Many people see government involvement to be far more corruptive, risky and unethical than unfettered risky investments by the banks.
More importantly most people are mindbogglingly stupid and politicians will make everything partisan since few people either understand the nuances or are unwilling to investigate the details of political claims. Getting quoted is generally far more important to a politician than the substance and merit of the quote itself.
So yeah, it’s partisan. You can argue perhaps it shouldn’t be, but it will be with absolute certainty. Everything now is partisan because now EVERYTHING can be spun into a negative and voter tend to respond to that no matter how dumb.
Let me explain the option about “banks should only loan to non-financial firms.” The 100-word limit only allowed me to place code words for the basic idea, which some many not be familiar with.
Some people, notably Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC, have made a case that one reason our economy is in trouble is that the investment funds of banks are tied up in financial instruments like derivatives, although not necessarily as RISKY as derivatives themselves, but the point is, money used in financial instruments is not being loaned to Main Street corporations, organizations that actually make things and provide services that will bring jobs to America, and increase our real wealth and productivity … whereas many financial instruments, especially the more complex ones, are really just forms of casino gambling whose true nature is disguised by dense thickets of financial jargon. Such instruments, it is argued, do not increase actual wealth to back the inflated numbers they produce, any more than the casinos in Vegas do. So the proposal would be to force banks to invest in actual wealth-creating activities, whether in the manufacturing, retail or service sectors.