Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Elizabeth Warren elected, a crushing defeat for big banks?

  1. Nov 7, 2012 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 7, 2012 #2
    I also wouldn't be surprised if they tried to nominate her for a presidential run in '16.
  4. Nov 7, 2012 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Warren can't do much on her own, but as a senator, she is much more powerful than all of us. Hopefully, her election and that of Maine's Angus King will encourage some Republicans to cross the aisle. 4 more years of NO! would be tough to take.
  5. Nov 7, 2012 #4
    On her own, no, but don't be surprised when she ends up on the Senate Banking committee and starts rocking the boat, which needs to be done.
  6. Nov 7, 2012 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    By the time she's done with the banks, we'll be paying for parking in their lot as well as an admission fee to their lobby.

    Someone always pays so that they make a profit...
  7. Nov 7, 2012 #6
  8. Nov 7, 2012 #7

    Credit unions.
  9. Nov 8, 2012 #8
    People actually physically go to banks still? Other than to open accounts, I mean. Everything I do is through online banking and ATMs.
  10. Nov 19, 2012 #9
    Not if she physically limits their profit margins, in a way similar to the PPACA's limiting of insurance company profit margins. Wouldn't that be wonderful.

    Elizabeth Warren is my new favorite Senator. I honestly wish she could run for President in 2016, but a) she wouldn't be politically experienced enough, and b) I really think she's too liberal. The country doesn't seem to be ready for a new FDR just yet.

    Anyway, she's just one Senator, and she was elected from one of the most liberal states in the country - the same state that brought us ultra-liberals like Ted Kennedy.
  11. Nov 19, 2012 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I think my bank (USAA) has one branch (can it be a "branch" if it is the only one?). Its in San Antonio. I've never been. I think they may be required by law to have a physical presence somewhere.
  12. Nov 21, 2012 #11
    The ACA does not limit profit margins. It sets a minimum medical loss ratio on certain lines of business.
  13. Nov 22, 2012 #12
    We've still got republicans on the house science committee insisting the earth is only 5,000 years old and according to the National Science Foundation one five Americans still believes the sun revolves around the earth. As much as I admire Warren she is just too radical to get much done against all the opposition and the idea of her even running for president in 2016 is a stretch.

    Part of what has made Obama special is his willingness to take a more mainstream modern Christian approach to issues and to refrain from taking a strong stance on things like breaking up the banks. He's at least as much of a pragmatist as he is an idealist which is exactly what it takes to get elected and get things done right now. Hopefully Warren and others like her will learn that lesson so that some day they will find themselves in a position to actually do the things they want.
  14. Nov 24, 2012 #13
  15. Nov 26, 2012 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ironically, King replaced one of the few Republicans that was willing to cross the aisle. Let's hope King can do the same.

    Edit: Just after writing this I remembered that Warren also replaced another of the very small number of Republicans that voted against the party majority.
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012
  16. Nov 26, 2012 #15
    Thank goodness. The least intransigent Republican is still infinitely less preferable than the most conservative Democrat, and Warren is nowhere near conservative.

    As for King, I think it's assured that he will be very bipartisan. The guy seems to be a Democrat through and through on many issues; he just recognizes that you have to actually pay for everything.
  17. Nov 27, 2012 #16
  18. Dec 30, 2012 #17
    I think its a sad day when a moderate republican is replaced by an extreme left wing. We dont need more far left or far right in congress. We need more moderates. Easier to compromise with moderates than far left/right nut cases. Im appaulled most of this thread seems to think its a sucess and a move forward.
  19. Dec 31, 2012 #18
    The United States is an interesting case, because our "moderate Republicans" would be "extreme right wing" in most of Europe, while our "extreme left wing" would be Europe's moderate left wing. Warren wants to regulate the bankers, not seize their assets and nationalize them.
  20. Dec 31, 2012 #19


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Regulation without bound can amount to the same thing.
  21. Dec 31, 2012 #20
    I reject your premise- Warren isn't "an extreme left wing." Yes, her academic work has suggested that banks have committed some abuses, but seriously- after the 2008 meltdown I think even many conservatives would agree that abuses happened.
  22. Jan 1, 2013 #21


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'd agree that abuses occurred ... mainly by government, the Fed, government pseudo banks such as Freddie and Fannie, and on the part of the government regulators who, after failing to be effective previously, Warren and others would now reward by multiplying their numbers and powers.
  23. Jan 1, 2013 #22
    Lol! That's like blaming the police for not preventing a murder rather than the murderer.
  24. Jan 1, 2013 #23
    Regulation without bound would amount to murdering bankers and their families. Has someone proposed regulation without bound?

    How would multiplying their numbers and powers reward them? Wouldn't a pay increase be more effective?
  25. Jan 1, 2013 #24


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :biggrin: Maybe, depending on the regulator. Much, much more likely in my view would be bankers kept healthy and made toadies of regulators and their political masters, i.e. all made one indistinguishable mass, which was my original point.

    Nope. But infinite regulation is not required, is it, just galloping increases to achieve an effect similar to nationalizing a bank.

    No. Not in government, at least per my reading and interaction with it. Higher government salaries attract attention and make easy political targets.

    So instead the game is the control as much power as possible. I've met several government program managers proud not of their performance but that their program size has only increased. This is an immediate reward in itself, but the power can be and is readily monetized by simply moving from government to the private sector (and back again) where colossal salaries or book advances are offered for connections that can avoid Sauron's eye, or direct it instead on a competitor. Or, power is monetized by simply prompting political contributions.

    I went on above not to suggest complete laissez faire when it comes to banks and securities firms, but to draw attention equal or more attention to government's flaws. My plan would be to break up the banks so that any one or dozen failures would non-catastrophic for the country, and then to otherwise leave them be.
  26. Jan 1, 2013 #25


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Do you not see *any* downside to more regulation? Even police chiefs are fired occasionally for bad outcomes. Not so federal regulators.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook