I'm all for it, and if anything, I believe it needs to be strengthened. The premise of it is good, as it recognizes that banks will do their worst to try and improve the bottom line, and the expense to customers is secondary to this. And though I'm a democratic socialist, I have to agree with raylas, that the law shouldn't be reinterpreted to suit the needs of certain people, particularly the banks it's meant to regulate.
Precisely. I'm center right, a libertarian in a lot of things, a capitalist, etc. But even so, if we're going to place a reasonable, humane restriction of banks, securities firms, etc. it shouldn't be something that's broken to work for them because somebody interprets it as so. If that happens, then the law has failed because it didn't protect people from predatory corporatism and similar practices. We both know the banks will do the most low down, dirty, wicked things to make money. I researched this law more, and I do think it would be a good thing, and that's from a person that hates, hates, HATES government regulations 99% of the time. Largely, because this one actually WORKED and actually did protect people, can't argue with results. The law exists to PROTECT THE PEOPLE, if it fails that, it is less than worthless.
In addition to this, the law needs some changes to strengthen it in modern society. For one, it needs to establish a generous budget for federal regulators. Many may argue such use of federal money is a waste of taxpayer funding (something that always makes me look at our ludicrous military budget), but the basic security it gives to citizens and their savings is absolutely priceless. This is important, because when funding isn't provided, we run into situations like Dodd-Frank, where legislators expected regulators to interpret and define the laws, while not providing them funding to actually regulate.
Correct, it was drafted in '33, the world has changed, it needs to be built stronger if it is made anew. And yes, Regulators need to be given some actual funding. While I dislike them, and I dislike government spending in general, they do a VERY IMPORTANT JOB and they are not going away. It ultimately should, if done properly without corporate interference, feed back into the private sector anyways, as you stated. Protection for us and our nest-eggs cannot be measured in mere dollars, I agree.
Another necessary addition to bank regulation is that any individual who is earning significant income from their industry (so, not just banking, really), or have direct familial ties to an individual who receives such an income (for example, if someone's wife is the CEO of Morgan Chase, that person shouldn't be on a board that governs bank regulation policies, because there's an inherent conflict of interest), cannot hold any form of public office or be a regulator. Otherwise, we run into regulatory capture, where individuals who should be regulating their industry instead work to remove regulations in their interests. Usually, this is because they earn some kind of income from some company or another, be it that they still receive benefits for being CEO, from stock, or whatever kind of inflow it may be. This makes them inherently biased in favor of the industry, because their own well-being is tied to how well it does.
Not a bad idea, in honesty. I DESPISE, I mean, HATE, like you could never believe, corporatism and crony-capitalism. I'm a PURE capitalist, Adam Smith style. Regulatory capture is easy to prevent and should not be allowed to occur. With very, VERY few exceptions (Carnegie would be one), you cannot trust people in the face of such temptation. Especially when they are the typical CEO type, who tend to be ruthless and self-interested to the extreme. They are, at that point, leeching off the system, and I do not appreciate them doing so.
The point of such changes isn't to limit companies' success, to try and cap what they can earn. It's to recognize that several lucrative practices are done explicitly at the expense of citizens, and business can't be trusted to put the interests of the people over their own. Since the government is supposed to be that, it should take on that role, and bar such practices.
Less cap WHAT they can earn and more HOW they do earn it. If they were to make it via honest business, that's all fine and dandy, more power to them, but putting the bottom line at the expense of others is unconscionable, and much like monopolies, trusts, and other such unethical actions, it should be regulated for, and if done with an OUNCE of common sense, can be done without hurting the capitalist system, and may even help by allowing more competitors to arise. A business, in a lot of ways, is like an animal: It will, as it's natural state, put it's own interests first 99% of the time. (small businesses are an exception) As such, we must consider this when dealing with them, and seriously think about letting them make choices about the interests of OTHERS besides themselves.
I am generally against government regulation. I believe it is inherently prone to failure, corruption, and over-complication. However, having looked deeply into this particular law, I do see reason in it, I see logic, I see a law that actually worked to help people and should probably be updated, reinstated, and enforced. I am willing to concede in this particular case, I might be opposed to regulation on principal, but I can still apply reason and see what's in front of me.
I say give it a shot. If it causes some vast harm or seems to be poised to, pull it back, re-work it, try again. What's the worst it could possibly do, realistically? Force banking companies to break up? Cause flux in the economy? Already had both those things several times, we always survived. I see this as something that would restore some power to proper capitalism, placing control in the hands of normal men and women, and that is what I have always believed was right.