Trump threatening to repeal Dodd-Frank

>Trump threatening to repeal Dodd-Frank
Is this man fucking insane? How long will people keep pretending he cares about the average American?

Other urls found in this thread:

forbes
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Credit_Opportunity_Act
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The average American is extremely irresponsible and stupid. Take advantage of crashing markets.

Even though you're most likely a shill here's some light reading so you can actually understand what you're talking about.

forbes . com/sites/timworstall/2015/07/21/dodd-frank-at-5-years-old-making-the-next-crash-more-likely-and-worse-when-it-happens/#1fc9b22976dd

I love how all of Trump's policies are innate social Darwinism. How about instead of feigning outrage over DF getting cut, you invest appropriately and make a killing off of it? Oh wait, it's because you actually don't know how this will affect the economy... at least not enough to put your money where your mouth is.

If you love social darwinism, why do you complain about "your" jobs being outsourced?

Didn't DF kill smaller banks?
also
Trump said he'll support new Glass-Steagall. So far he kept his promises, so let's have so good faith and give him one year.

I love my people and want to see this remain a white country. Jobs are a secondary concern. I don't need to worry about money. I invest appropriately.

Average American is too dumb to understand that the world is complex and there's no simple solution to difficult problem. Repealing Dodd-Frank will fuck over American people.

why do you need to repeal DF when you could reform it?

If you love your people, why are you a social darwinist and supporting this?

repealing Dodd-Frank is nothing more than Trump sucking Wall Street's collective cocks.

Because I believe my people to be superior and every form of social darwinism has historically resulted in the prosperity of the white race at the expense of others.

Not that I'm against some regulations on banks, but Dodd Frank is an example of shitty regulation.

It basically made smaller local banks unprofitable, leading to several thousand smaller banks getting bought out by the big 5. How do you fix too big to fail with too bigger to fail?

lol

You don't have to put spaces in the link dumdum.

"Your" people will suffer miserably. Be honest and admit you don't care, you egoist.

>everyone i don't like is a shill
maybe it was the intended thing? to consolidate banking sector into fewer institutions that'll be easier to control

See and forbes . com/sites/timworstall/2015/07/21/dodd-frank-at-5-years-old-making-the-next-crash-more-likely-and-worse-when-it-happens/#1fc9b22976dd

>care about the average American

Oh, you mean that preventing predatory behavior of usurious banks to prey upon people that they KNOW cannot pay their loans back in full—is somehow not caring for the average American?


FUCK
OUTTA'
HERE

>leafs
>comments on economics
Your shitty country has like half the GDP per capita as a single US state. Gain some self-awareness.

>really cares about the average American
Whatsoever gave you that impression?

>Oh, you mean that preventing predatory behavior of usurious banks to prey upon people that they KNOW cannot pay their loans back in full—is somehow not caring for the average American?
Then you should be against its repeal.

you would need to be retarded to think Big Banks don't love Dodd Frank. It hurts small community banks. Keeping the one group that is in the best position to provide small business loans covered up in regulations and compliance officers. You can't just take the supposed intentions of a law for granted. You need to understand the text of it.

What about living within your own means is so hard for people to understand?

I'm glad, as an average American I'll have more access to loans from the bank Jew now.

Why would a bank give a loan to someone they know can't repay it? Because the loan is government guaranteed. Simply don't guarantee loans and you don't need endless "regulations" that do more harm than good.

...

>maybe it was the intended thing? to consolidate banking sector into fewer institutions that'll be easier to control

It doesn't though it concentrates the risk making the whole system more fragile

So you think, goy... so you think...

...

What specifically about Dodd frank is "insane" to get rid of?
What are the specific consequences you foresee after a repeal?

>There is people who believe Dodd-Frank is good.

Yeah, and one of them will be so big that will be Deutsche Bank-tier or worse.

Specifically how?

I care. I also care that "other" people will be hurt far worse than mine will. It's all about proportions user.

it would allow banks to give risky loans again

You realize currently in America you are not allowed to consider shit like being on welfare when evaluating someone for credit, right?

Non-statist corporate kleptocrats who will pick the bones of this country dry

I fucking wish I was in a position to buy a home during this era. The hardest part is saving up the down payment. I pay more now for a studio apartment than I would a house with a yard. If you can't hustle enough to make a $700/month mortgage you're probably retarded or a nigger or a retarded nigger.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Credit_Opportunity_Act

What is your point?

So if you're all so smart how should I invest my money to take advantage if the DF is repealed?

Risky loans still exist all over the place.

There are literally professional debtors.
You too can be one!

Wrong. Risky loans were incentivised by the community reinvestment act. Banks didn't just start making risky loans for the hell of it. They were incentivised by the government. And if you didn't make a enough of those loans, you were demonized as "racist". Given that these could just pass through government sponsored enterprises, the path of least resistance was to just make the loans. And some claim only a small percentage of banks had to follow such regulation. But they ignore the fact that others were threatened to either make such loans too or they would fall under those regulations. Plus small banks felt encouraged to make such loans because large banks would be more likely to buy them out as those loans would be credited toward them to meet regulations. The reason the banks were bailed out by the government is that it was a government created problem. The reason Obama didn't attempt to prosecute any of them is because the finger would point back to him and his fellow democrats. In fact Obama himself would stand in some of those bank lobbies and protest when he was a community organizer. And the banks couldn't very well argue any of this in the media because the politicians were demonizing the hell out of them to deflect blame while also the ones bailing them out. Plus the media was already in full Obama knob gobbling mode and blaming the banks for everything is fairly low effort journalism.