Alan Greenspan on Business, Economics, Immigration Reform & Dodd-Frank Financial Regulations Law

• Report rights infringement
• published: 17 Oct 2015
• views: 156

Ed Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association, regarded the reforms as haphazard and dangerous, saying "To some degree, it looks like they're just blowing up everything for the sake of change [...] [i]f this were to happen, the regulatory system would be in chaos for years. You have to look at the real-world impact of this."[230] Some experts have argued that Dodd–Frank isn’t strong enough, arguing that it fails to protect consumers adequately, and, more importantly, does not end too big to fail.[233] The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) — the "top Wall Street lobby" — has expressed support for the law, and has urged Congress not to change or repeal it in order to prevent a stronger law from passing.[234] A survey by RIMES of senior investment banking figures in the US and UK showed that 86% expect that Dodd-Frank will significantly increase the cost of their data operations.[235] Law professor and bankruptcy expert David Skeel concluded that the law has two major themes which are "government partnership with the largest Wall Street banks and financial institutions" and "a system of ad hoc interventions by regulators that are divorced from basic rule-of-law constraints". While he states that "the overall pattern of the legislation is disturbing", he also concludes that some are clearly helpful, such as the derivatives exchanges and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.[236] Continental European scholars have also discussed the necessity of far-reaching banking reforms in light of the current crisis of confidence, recommending the adoption of binding regulations that would go further than Dodd–Frank—notably in France where SFAF and World Pensions Council (WPC) banking experts have argued that, beyond national legislations, such rules should be adopted and implemented within the broader context of separation of powers in European Union law.[237][238] This perspective has gained ground after the unraveling of the Libor scandal in July 2012, with mainstream opinion leaders such as the Financial Times editorialists calling for the adoption of an EU-wide "Glass Steagall II". On July 12, 2012, the Competitive Enterprise Institute joined the State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas, and the 60 Plus Association as plaintiffs in a lawsuit[249] filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of provisions of Dodd-Frank.[250] The complaint asked the court to invalidate the law,[249] arguing that it gives the federal government unprecedented, unchecked power. The lawsuit was amended on September 20, 2012, to include the states of Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Michigan as plaintiffs.[251] PDF The states are asking the court to review the constitutionality of the Orderly Liquidation Authority established under Title II of Dodd-Frank. In February 2013 Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt announced that Kansas along with Alabama, Georgia, Ohio, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, Montana, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia would join the lawsuit.[252] The second amended complaint included those new states as plaintiffs.[253] On August 1, U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing.[254][255] In July 2015, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the bank, but not the states that later joined the lawsuit, had standing to challenge the law, and returned the case to Huvelle for further proceedings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act