this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
45 points (100.0% liked)

News

22890 readers
3743 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Federal regulators are at odds over how to advance a sweeping plan to require the nation’s biggest banks to strengthen their financial resilience — and they’re running up against a presidential election that could jeopardize the entire project.

Officials at the Federal Reserve and other regulators, which jointly unveiled the proposal in July 2023, have been negotiating for months over how to move forward with the draft rules in the face of a furious lobbying effort by Wall Street.

But they have been unable to reach a consensus on what their next steps should be, according to people familiar with the discussions, further complicating efforts to agree on revisions to the proposal, which would sharply increase banks’ capital requirements.

“The banks have won,” said Dennis Kelleher, who leads Better Markets, an advocacy group pushing for a strict rule. “They have delay, stalemate. … It doesn’t get better than that if you’re Wall Street.”

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why are banks involved in the feds developing regulations to force those institutions to support themselves? I mean it's fucking insane to think banks should have any say in the matter.

[–] Dran_Arcana@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

In a world of good-faith, rational actors, it is reasonable to consult experts in the industry you're about to regulate. In theory, a good-faith adversarial discussion will root out inconsistencies and logical fallacies within the regulation.

Obviously that's usually not the case in modern politics, but I think the system was designed when it was thought that the average person would be operating in good faith, and in that context it makes sense.

[–] Delta_V@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Its framed as being done to "strengthen their financial resilience", but I suspect the motive is to slow down the rate at which banks are creating new money, driving up inflation. If these bank regulations pass, we can lower taxes without blowing up the inflation rate. Or, the Federal Government can spend more without increasing taxes, keeping the inflation rate the same.

The banks hate it because they would issue fewer loans, and therefore make less money. Its takes money out of the pockets of bankers and puts it into the hands of the Federal Government.

I'm generally in favor of markets deciding what gets produced, i.e. letting the banks judge which businesses asking for loans have the best chance of paying them back. However, the market has some blind spots where we're all better off if the government steps in - for example, defense spending, infrastructure, and R&D (investing in NASA has historically provided incredible RoI).

That the Fed is even considering this new approach suggests to me that there is a perceived need for a rush of government spending in the near future, and the current geopolitical landscape suggests it will be spent on weapons.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago

Politico - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Politico:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/20/fed-regulators-capital-rule-impasse-00174288
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support