
Executive Order on Principles for Regulating the US Financial System - rainhacker
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/03/presidential-executive-order-core-principles-regulating-united-states
======
kafkaesq
The order was, of course, deliberately vague in its wording. The NYT provides
a succinct translation:

 _President Trump on Friday moved to chisel away at the Obama administration’s
legacy on financial reform, announcing a series of steps to revisit the rules
enacted after the 2008 financial crisis and setting the stage for a showdown
with Democrats over the future of Wall Street regulation._

 _After a White House meeting with the executives, Mr. Trump signed a
directive calling for his administration to identify potential changes to
provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, crafted by the Obama administration and
passed by Congress in response to the 2008 meltdown. A second directive he
signed will effectively halt an Obama-era Labor Department rule that requires
brokers to act in a client’s best interest, rather than seek the highest
profits for themselves, when providing retirement advice._

 _The executive order impacting Dodd-Frank is vague in its wording and broad
in its reach; it never mentions the Dodd-Frank law by name, instead laying out
“core principles” for regulating the financial system, including empowering
American investors and enhancing the competitiveness of American companies.
But it amounts to a broad grant of authority to the Treasury Department to
find ways of restructuring major provisions of Dodd-Frank, directing the
secretary to conduct a sweeping review of existing laws and make sure they
align with the administration’s goals._

 _Mr. Trump’s action on the fiduciary rule will have a more immediate impact.
His memorandum directs the Department of Labor to review whether the rule may
“adversely affect” investors’ ability to access financial advice — and if it
does, he authorized the agency to rescind or revise the rule._

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/business/dealbook/trump-c...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/business/dealbook/trump-
congress-financial-regulations.html)

------
filoeleven
Where is section (f) ?

~~~
cr0sh
That's a damn good question.

------
toyg
Looks very wimpy for such a huge majority controlling both Congress and
Executive to use a vague Executive Order to wipe a law (Dodd-Frank) rather
than to vote on a repeal.

~~~
st3v3r
Perhaps, but this way no one has to go on the record stating that they're in
favor of repealing the rule that financial advisors have to act as
fiduciaries.

Of course, one would also think that no one would want to go on record voting
to repeal a regulation designed to stop miners from dumping their stuff in our
water, but apparently one would be wrong.

~~~
toyg
Or going on record that the mentally ill should be armed.

I honestly don't know how one can explain that sort of thing to his
electorate, but clearly one can.

~~~
sverige
What does the rescission of the Social Security rule against gun ownership
have to do with this EO?

~~~
toyg
It's in the same category of "insane choices voted-in by duly-elected
representatives that will somehow still manage to persuade the electorate to
vote against their own common sense".

------
jfaucett
If you just listed the core principles outlined here for anyone I don't see
how they could find anything disagreeable. This sounds great, especially
points a and b.

~~~
tptacek
It sounds great because there is no administration in the last 50 years that
didn't already have those principles. This executive order doesn't say
anything.

~~~
steego
You meant to say claimed to have those principles. If everyone actually had
those principles, the financial crisis would have never happened.

~~~
sverige
Correct. There are quite a few reasons that both the Bush neocons and the
Democrats opposed Trump, and one of those reasons is that Trump attacked the
"too big to fail" banks during his campaign.

I think it's a mistake to read this as being entirely favorable to those
banks. They are still trying to figure out how to profit off the move away
from globalism, and while they are likely to be able to do so, there is no
question that their core principles are opposed to those stated here.

~~~
steego
Too many indefinite article can be confusing, especially when you're talking
about politics and people's/group's interests.

> I think it's a mistake to read this as being entirely favorable to those
> banks

You're referring to the EO, or the campaign promise?

> They are still trying to figure out how to profit off the move away from
> globalism

Are you referring to the banks or the interests backing Trump?

> there is no question that their core principles are opposed to those stated
> here

We're talking about the banks?

Clearly the banks don't like the rhetoric of "too big to fail". If Trump
manages to show an effective display of power over the next 100 days, he _may_
have the leverage he wants to do _something_. Now, I think it's silly for
anybody to speculate what that _something_ is because he's been very vague
about it. That works for him because it gives him the option to save face with
his supported by producing watered-down reform if he's unable to affect truly
effective regulatory change.

The question is: What might Trump want from the banks? It's important to
enumerate both selfless and self-serving reasons. Does he want something
personally, or does he want political support for something he wants to do?
What is he willing to negotiate?

Taking on the banks is not an easy feat. I suspect Trump has cozied up with
other special interests that will give him the backing to take on the banks,
but it will probably cost us our environment and it could very likely lead to
more antagonism and campaigns in the Middle East. Some people think he's being
dopey when he says, "We should have taken the oil". I suspect he's securing
another option that he can call on when he needs something.

------
cameldrv
Trump may not do what you think -- Bannon hates the hippies/anarchists from
OWS, but also despises the capture of the government by the big banks. Watch
his documentary/propaganda piece Generation Zero to get an idea of his
thinking:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3SLtP10NQ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3SLtP10NQ8)

~~~
hackuser
> Trump may not do what you think

That's very vague and open-ended. (He may not, but he may) + (If not, he could
do anything) = Everything = Nothing

A talking point in the last few days has been, 'keep an open mind'. After a
year and a half of Trump brazenly announcing his plans and several months of
him implementing them, I have a pretty good idea of what Trump is. If he wants
to change my mind, he'll have to change his actions.

> the capture of the government by the big banks

If Trump wants to avoid this, his approach of appointing Wall Street titans,
removing key Wall Street regulations, and doing nothing for consumer
protection (AFAIK), seems odd.

Again, rather than speculating, we have plenty of hard evidence. If Trump
wants to surprise us, he has every chance to do it.

