Is Trump TRYING To Crash The Economy Again?

THE NEXT SET OF DONALD TRUMP'S EXECUTIVE ORDERS WERE REVEALED
TODAY, WITH SOME TAKING AIM AT FINANCIAL REGULATIONS SET UP IN
THE WAKE OF THE GREAT RECESSION, AND OTHERS SETTING THE STAGE FOR
HIS NEXT LEGISLATIVE BATTLE OVER TAX REFORM --
ONE IS BEING ABLE TO IDENTIFY BANKS THAT POSE SYSTEMIC RISKS
TO THE REST OF THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
THE OTHER IS A SYSTEM WHEREBY MONEY WOULD BE TEMPORARILY PUT
INTO THOSE BANKS SO THERE COULD BE A PROCESS OF SORT OF ORDERLY
LIQUIDATION OF THOSE BANKS, WHICH SOME BELIEVE IS ANOTHER
FORM OF BAILOUT, BASICALLY, LIKE A BACKDOOR BAILOUT TO SOME
EXTENT.
THIS ISN'T GETTING RID OF THOSE REGULATIONS, BUT AS
WITH OTHER TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDERS IT'S A REVIEW PROCESS
THAT HAS AS ITS NATURAL CONCLUSION POSSIBLY GETTING RID
OF THOSE REGULATIONS.
WE HAD A BIG DEBATE DURING THE DEMOCRATIC
PRIMARY ABOUT HOW MUCH STRONGER THOSE REGULATIONS SHOULD BE IN
TERMS OF PERHAPS PREEMPTIVELY TAKING APART SOME BANKS THAT
WERE QUOTE TOO BIG TO FAIL, THEY MIGHT BE GOING IN A DIFFERENT
DIRECTION.
GETTING RID OF THE ABILITY TO CLASSIFY THEM IN THAT FASHION.
SOME OF THESE POINTS ARE ARGUABLE, ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT THAT
INTERESTING AN ARGUMENT, SOME OF WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO IS
HORRIBLE.
WHEN THEY SAY, LOOK, IF WE SAY A BANK OR FINANCIAL
INSTITUTION IS TOO BIG TO FAIL AND WE WILL HAVE AN ORDERLY WAY
OF DISSOLVING THEM, DOES THAT GIVE THAT BANK A BIT OF AN
ADVANTAGE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO PUT THEIR MONEY INTO THAT BANK
KNOW IT'S MORE PROTECTED?
A LITTLE BIT, THAT'S AN
INTERESTING POINT TO MAKE.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND WE ALSO HAVE
THE FDIC THAT PROTECTS THE BANKS, AND THE MAIN POINT OF
THAT IS TO PROTECT CONSUMERS, IF YOU HAVE UP TO $250,000 IN A
BANK THAT WILL BE PROTECTED.
NOW BOB SETS UP HIS OWN FINANCIAL
INSTITUTION IN HIS BACKYARD, IT'S NOT FDIC PROTECTED, FDIC
BANKS HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OVER BOB.
THAT'S TRUE, BUT WE LIKE
HAVING CONSUMERS PROTECTED, IT'S IMPORTANT TO THE WORLD ORDER AN
ECONOMY THAT SOME OF THAT MONEY BE PROTECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT
TO THE POINT OF CONSUMERS.
THAT'S ARGUABLE, BUT STILL I
THINK THEY ARE WRONG ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IF THINGS GO SOUTH
BELIEVE ME YOU WANT YOUR MONEY IN THE BANK THAT'S PROTECTED.
THE ONE THAT ISN'T ARGUABLE IS, YOU KNOW, THESE SYSTEMICALLY
IMPORTANT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, LABELING THEM THAT
WAY AND MAKING SURE THEY DON'T TAKE OUTSIZED RISKS AND DOING
MORE REGULATIONS, WE DON'T NEED THAT ANYMORE, BESIDES WHICH IT
WAS ACTUALLY HELPING THE BANKERS -- KNOW IT WASN'T, IT WAS TRYING
TO MAKE SURE THEY DON'T TAKE TOO MUCH RISK AND BLOW UP THE
ECONOMY.
FOR EXAMPLE METLIFE IS A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, NOT A
BANK, AND THEY WANT TO BE A SYSTEMICALLY IMPORTANT FINANCIAL
INSTITUTION?
NO, THEY HATED IT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T LET THEM TAKE
MORE RISK.
SO WHEN THEY PRETEND THAT THIS IS TO SOMEHOW KEEP A
CHECK ON THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, THE FACTS ARE
COMPLETELY THE OPPOSITE.
THE BANKS LOVE THEM GETTING
DEREGULATED LIKE THIS SO THEY CAN TAKE MORE RISK.
AND WE KNOW
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN BANKERS TAKE TOO MUCH RISK, 2008 HAPPENS.
BIG PICTURE ON THIS, NO ONE SHOULD BE SURPRISED BECAUSE MR.
TRUMP RAN ON A CAMPAIGN OF UNRAVELING ALL OF PRESIDENT
OBAMA'S SIGNATURE EFFORTS, WE SAW IT WITH THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT, DODD-FRANK WAS ANOTHER ONE, SO THAT SHOULDN'T BE A SURPRISE.
AND IF YOU SUPPORTED THAT, YOU PROBABLY LIKE THIS.
HE DID SAY THAT, BUT HE ALSO SAID HE WOULD DRAIN THE SWAMP.
HE SAID GOLDMAN SACHS CONTROLS TED CRUZ AND HILLARY CLINTON,
HILLARY CLINTON WAS TOO COZY WITH WALL STREET.
HILLARY
CLINTON WOULD NOT HAVE DONE THIS, AND SHE WOULD HAVE DONE
MANY OTHER THINGS THAT WERE PRO-BANK, THAT'S WHY I WAS
AGAINST HER IN THE PRIMARY, STRIDENTLY SO, BUT THIS IS WAY
MORE HELPFUL TO WALL STREET THAN ANYTHING HILLARY CLINTON WOULD
HAVE DONE, AND IT HELPS GROW THE SWAMP.
AND DONALD TRUMP ENDED UP
PUTTING THOSE GOLDMAN SACHS GUYS AND OTHER BANKERS IN HIS
ADMINISTRATION AS WELL.
I THINK TRUMP VOTERS WERE CONFUSED.
REGULATION IS TERRIBLE, I WANT TO DRAIN THE SWAMP, AND MAKE
SURE BANKERS ARE MORE POWERFUL?
YOU THINK THEY ARE CONFUSED?
ALSO THERE WAS A TWO-PRONGED WAY WHERE FOR SOME REASON PEOPLE
BELIEVE SHE WOULD BE HARD ON THE BANKS.
THAT NEVER MADE SENSE.
ONE REASON I THINK WAS BECAUSE HILLARY CLINTON AND HER SPEECHES
THEY SEEM SUPER COZY, THEN YOU HAD TRUMP MAKING SOME REFERENCES
TO GETTING RID OF THE EXEMPTION FOR CARRIED INTERESTS, WHICH HE
HAS ALREADY ANNOUNCED HE WON'T DO.
SO THE IDEA THAT THIS GUY
WHO HAS LIVED IN NEW YORK AND IS SURROUNDED BY THOSE PEOPLE,
THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE AT HIS CLUBS, THAT HE WOULD BE HARDER
ON THEM, THAT WAS RIDICULOUS, AND IN TERMS OF -- WE WARNED
AHEAD OF TIME THE VARIOUS WAYS TRUMP POSED A RISK WHERE HE TO
BECOME PRESIDENT, AND WE SAW SOME OF THEM.
I DIDN'T EXPECT IT
WOULD BE ON THE BRINK OF NUCLEAR WAR WITH NORTH KOREA, THAT'S
COOL -- BUT IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC RISKS, HE HASN'T SAID HE WOULD
DEFAULT ON U.S. DEBT YET, BUT SAYING THAT THESE GAINS WE HAD
AFTER THE GREAT RECESSION, THAT BRINGS US CLOSER TO ANOTHER ONE,
BUT THIS WEEK WE TALKED ABOUT THEM DELAYING THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE FIDUCIARY RULE.
THE IDEA OF BANKERS HAVING TO THINK OF
ANYTHING OTHER THAN THEIR OWN SHORT-TERM FINANCIAL INTERESTS,
HE'S GETTING RID OF THAT.
SO YOU TAKE AWAY OVERSIGHT OF THE BANKS
AND ANY REGULATION OF BANKERS, YOU GET US RIGHT BACK TO THE
SITUATION WE WERE IN BEFORE THE GREAT RECESSION AND THAT SHOULD
BE SCARY.
ALSO WE HAVE EXECUTIVE ORDERS ON TAXES --
EXECUTIVE MEMOS, JOHN.
THIS IS AN EXECUTIVE ORDER BUT THERE IS NO REAL DIFFERENCE --
WHAT ABOUT ACTIONS?
ACTIONS ARE
A LITTLE DIFFERENT --
BEAR IN MIND, THIS IS FROM THE PARTY THAT SAYS THAT THE TAX
CODE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIT ON A SINGLE PIECE OF PAPER.
GOD KNOWS
WHAT IT TAKES TO QUALIFY AS UNDUE COMPLEXITY.
LET'S TALK
ABOUT ONE AREA THEY WILL FOCUS ON, AND THINK ABOUT HOW THIS
AFFECTS YOU AS A TAXPAYER --
AND THANK GOD, BECAUSE IT TOOK A POPULIST LIKE DONALD
TRUMP TO HELP YOU OUT AND GIVE YOU THE AUTHORITY TO DO
CORPORATE INVERSIONS AGAIN.
A SIMPLE WAY OF EXPLAINING CORPORATE INVERSIONS IS IT
ALLOWS CORPORATIONS TO HIDE MONEY OFFSHORE.
IT'S A LITTLE
OVERSIMPLISTIC TO DESCRIBE THAT WAY, BUT IT ALLOWS THEM TO AVOID
U.S. TAXES.
THAT'S THE ONLY POINT OF A CORPORATE INVERSION,
THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE POINT TO IT.
IF YOU HAVE SUBSIDIARIES
ABROAD, WE'VE ALWAYS HAD SUBSIDIARIES ABROAD, THAT'S NOT
THE POINT OF THE INVERSION, IT'S A RULE TO AVOID TAXES.
DID YOU
THINK WHEN YOU ARE VOTING FOR TRUMP THAT HE WOULD MAKE SURE
THAT MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS CAN USE FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO
AVOID U.S. TAXES?
IS THAT WHAT YOU BARGAINED FOR?
YES I DID.
IF YOU DID BARGAIN FOR THAT, THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE
WHO DID, THEY ARE SUPER HAPPY.
THEY GOT BILLIONS IN TAX BREAKS
BACK.
FOR THE REST OF US WE JUST GOT HOSED.
THAT COULD'VE GONE TOWARDS SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS,
BRIDGES, ROADS, BUT IT WILL GO RIGHT BACK TO THE POCKET OF
THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION EXECUTIVES.

Is Trump TRYING To Crash The Economy Again?

Latest Posts