Elizabeth Warren: 'Big Banks Always Get What They Want'

Elizabeth Warren, chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, certainly looks to be fighting the good fight. At the conclusion of the Buttonwood Gathering in New York on Fixing Finance, she met with Tech Ticker’s Aaron Task and gave him quite an ear full.

Listen to what she has to say about the lay of the land.

On the Obama Administration’s victory lap:

• "It is not the case people go to bed wondering if there will be an economy in the morning," she quips, but "we still have lot of serious problems."

On the banks:

• “They have all the money. they have all the lobbyists.”
• “I don’t understand how they can’t see that the world has changed in a fundamental way – it’s not business as usual. All I can say right now is they seem to be winning this argument.”

On housing:

• "We see things getting worse in the housing market."
• "We have to get foreclosures under control."

On this moment in history:

This is a moment when all around the country people are saying we’ve had it about up to here with these large financial institutions that want to write the rule then take our money. I find it astonishing that they have the nerve to show up and say, ‘I’m a big financial institution. I took your money. And now I’m going to lobby against anything that might offer some protection to ordinary families in this marketplace.

More below in the three part interview. Links below.

Source

Wall St. Is Winning: Elizabeth Warren "Speechless" About Record Bonuses – Tech Ticker

Warren: Housing Market Getting Worse – Tech Ticker

"Astonishing" That Big Banks Are Taking Taxpayer Money, Writing the Rules, Warren Says – Tech Ticker

Comments

[Michael Clark:]

The longer we wait to address these ills, the more radical the solutions become.

Oct 18 07:57 AM

[Ferdinand E...:]

Mr Clark could be right. It took a long time to address the ill known as President Bush, and so a radical solution was necessary, by which I mean letting some intelligent people manage the economy.

Oct 18 09:43 AM

[Daniel Herkes:]

Thank you for information. I thought this was foreseeable. But many people are just too busy trying to get by. It is not as though the banks are really all that forthcoming with the details of their relationship with the government.

Oct 18 09:46 AM

[Graham and ...:]

"It is not as though the banks are really all that forthcoming with the details of their relationship with""--ANYTHING


On Oct 18 09:46 AM Daniel Herkes wrote:

> Thank you for information. I thought this was foreseeable. But
> many people are just too busy trying to get by. It is not as though
> the banks are really all that forthcoming with the details of their
> relationship with the government.

Oct 18 10:27 AM

[knight:]

SHE is the only one with the balls to call it like it is. Timmy, Larry and Ben should take some notes. These 3 are a cancer to the system!! They dont care about you they care about where they are going to work once thier role is up for the gov. Timmy cant even sell his house he had to put it on rent. Probably took advise from Ben when he said their is no housing crisis and went and bought a home. HA.

Oct 18 03:39 PM

[The Geoffster:]

You're silly Ferd. Government mismanagement of the economy is the problem. Doesn't matter how smart politicians think they are. They can never outmanage good entrepreneurs.


On Oct 18 09:43 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:

> Mr Clark could be right. It took a long time to address the ill known
> as President Bush, and so a radical solution was necessary, by which
> I mean letting some intelligent people manage the economy.

Oct 18 03:41 PM

[buyitcheap:]

Ferdie - the intelligent people have yet to show up. Bush was no prize, but Obama is the Warren Harding of this millennium.

Oct 18 08:00 PM

[a fat panda:]

I don't see anything though provoking her comments. Her rethoric seems garden variety populism. Talking the playbook against the big banks plays well on TV. It is unfortunate that it has gotten so much air on this website.

Before you say "Oh Lizzy! Save us." Keep in mind that you work for the dumb bastards who gave the big banks the money in the first place.

Oct 18 09:17 PM

[a fat panda:]

Should be :

I don't see anything thought provoking her comments. Her rethoric seems garden variety populism. Talking the playbook against the big banks plays well on TV. It is unfortunate that it has gotten so much air on this website.

Before you say "Oh Lizzy! Save us." Keep in mind that she works for the dumb bastards who gave the big banks the money in the first place

Oct 18 11:27 PM

[D. McHattie:]

If you did not hear anything thought provoking then perhaps you need to turn the volume on.

Did you notice that she actually suggested that taxpayer bailouts of foreclosures may not be the solution?

That is NOT a populist statement - that is a refreshingly pragmatic and courageous statement for someone whose background is supposed to be pretty left-wing.


D

On Oct 18 11:27 PM a fat panda wrote:

> Should be :
>
> I don't see anything thought provoking her comments. Her rethoric
> seems garden variety populism. Talking the playbook against the big
> banks plays well on TV. It is unfortunate that it has gotten so much
> air on this website.
>
> Before you say "Oh Lizzy! Save us." Keep in mind that she works for
> the dumb bastards who gave the big banks the money in the first place

Oct 19 04:40 PM

[a fat panda:]

We may have different standards for thought provoking. Suggesting that a bailout of foreclosures may not be the solution strikes me as obvious. It is more likely to make matters worse. What would be thought provoking is a solution that doesn't involve mommy-government coming to the rescue.

Bashing banks on behalf of outraged taxpayers is populism. Her wording misses the point that printed money isn't taxpayer money it is a tax on savers. In a country where the savings rate has been 1% for many many years there is a huge difference between these groups. But no one in Washington is interested in talking about savers.


On Oct 19 04:40 PM D. McHattie wrote:

> If you did not hear anything thought provoking then perhaps you need
> to turn the volume on.
>
> Did you notice that she actually suggested that taxpayer bailouts
> of foreclosures may not be the solution?
>
> That is NOT a populist statement - that is a refreshingly pragmatic
> and courageous statement for someone whose background is supposed
> to be pretty left-wing.
>
>
> D
>
> On Oct 18 11:27 PM a fat panda wrote:

Oct 19 06:32 PM

[a fat panda:]

Here is my problem with thought provoking, courageous, and pragmatic. I see much more thought provoking material on this website. Maybe you have very low expectations for our government officials. Fair enough. I would like to think that they can do better than this.

On Oct 19 04:40 PM D. McHattie wrote:

> If you did not hear anything thought provoking then perhaps you need
> to turn the volume on.
>
> Did you notice that she actually suggested that taxpayer bailouts
> of foreclosures may not be the solution?
>
> That is NOT a populist statement - that is a refreshingly pragmatic
> and courageous statement for someone whose background is supposed
> to be pretty left-wing.
>
>
> D
>
> On Oct 18 11:27 PM a fat panda wrote:

Oct 19 06:44 PM

[D. McHattie:]

I can't agree with your assessment of Elizabeth Warren, Panda, but I suspect I agree with you on many other issues.

One big problem I see with getting people to realize the truth is that our political environment is so polarized that no one is willing to accept reasonable suggestions when they are suggested by the other side.

One thing Elizabeth Warren is NOT is a political hack. She is clear, straightforward and intellectually rigorous.

It is unfortunate that some solutions she proposes, such as a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, involve more government.

My preference would be for no government interference at all but the various incentives and disincentives, advantages and disadvantages of our byzantine regulatory structure force me to conclude that it would be easier, safer and more effective to add a little more regulation with some consolidation rather than try to disentangle the whole mess.

Like I say, I would choose to blow up the whole regulatory structure but I don't think it's realistic to believe that a majority of people will come around to that line of thinking anytime soon. We're too far down the rabbit hole.

Elizabeth Warren offers a workable, neutral compromise and she offers it in a package that just might win people over.

Oct 19 07:40 PM

[a fat panda:]

I do agree with you on a lot of things, particularly your take on inflation and your assessment of the political environment. I will give her a fuller listen.

The clips that I have heard have rubbed me the wrong way because I believe that jiggling demand is a waste of time. (I will spare you the longer version which I just put on an instablog - I welcome your thoughts.)

In my mind, the solution needs to be focused on increasing asset productivity - I haven't heard anyone in government even talk about it.


On Oct 19 07:40 PM D. McHattie wrote:

> I can't agree with your assessment of Elizabeth Warren, Panda, but
> I suspect I agree with you on many other issues.
>
> One big problem I see with getting people to realize the truth is
> that our political environment is so polarized that no one is willing
> to accept reasonable suggestions when they are suggested by the other
> side.
>
> One thing Elizabeth Warren is NOT is a political hack. She is clear,
> straightforward and intellectually rigorous.
>
> It is unfortunate that some solutions she proposes, such as a Consumer
> Financial Protection Agency, involve more government.
>
> My preference would be for no government interference at all but
> the various incentives and disincentives, advantages and disadvantages
> of our byzantine regulatory structure force me to conclude that it
> would be easier, safer and more effective to add a little more regulation
> with some consolidation rather than try to disentangle the whole
> mess.
>
> Like I say, I would choose to blow up the whole regulatory structure
> but I don't think it's realistic to believe that a majority of people
> will come around to that line of thinking anytime soon. We're too
> far down the rabbit hole.
>
> Elizabeth Warren offers a workable, neutral compromise and she offers
> it in a package that just might win people over.

Oct 20 01:54 PM

[Living4Divi...:]

I like Elizabeth Warren - she is analytical, fair-minded and honest.

Thanks to the author for creating a mini Elizabeth Warren blog.

Oct 22 07:18 AM