Elizabeth Warren's banking proposals are designed to demolish the private equity sector and force finance to serve the people

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/07/22/finance-napalm.html


What a wonderful set of principles…

Of course this means the Banksters are now her mortal enemies :frowning_face:


Warren’s detailed knowledge of how private equity allows the super rich to grow their fortunes by destroying real businesses and real jobs mean that these proposals are “banking-sector napalm…burning away every loophole and unfair advantage these funds have and disintegrating their profitability into ash”

So she’s trying to end the business model of vulture capitalists like Mitt Romney, summarised here:


A Warren / Sanders ticket? Unbeatable, so say I.


They have pretty much been her mortal enemies since the Great Recession. They are WHY she was never appointed to head the CFPB. They made it clear that she would never get approved by the Senate. Which might have been a mistake on their part because she instead got elected to the Senate. Which is on the face of it, a less powerful position, but one with a greater bully pulpit. And she has used that to greatly popularize the idea of re-regulating the financial markets, and to expose some of the worst excesses.


Would an old western radio drama get through to old, white, conservative MAGAts? Let me see if I’ve got the outline right…

There’s a small mining town, and the corrupt, inept governor/sherriff of the town has mismanaged it into the ground. The Private Equity “crooked property developer” rides in, pays the leader some amount of money, then pays himself a fee to strip the place to the bones and sell off the goods, the proceeds of which he also gives to himself. Then he runs the black-lunged townspeople out on a rail and sells their houses and land to himself, giving himself a bonus for the effort. Then defaults on the debts the town made to the railroad companies, and gives himself a bonus for that.

And, ugh, fine, if it makes them feel better, the day can be saved by a rich heir disguised as a hobo riding the rails to find his hobo princess…


One of the many reasons I support Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy.


Good time to remember that the down-ticket races matter at least as much as who wins the White House. No way we get wholesale structural change like this unless Dems get a lot more legislative seats in 2020.


except it’d better be Sanders/Warren. Let Berine be the front man while Warren turns the wrenches on this shit out of the heat.


So long as you get both of them, I’m not too bothered about the order.


Strictly speaking, Warren’s plan is targeting private equity firms, not banking. Though the US sorely needs some banks that will help the real economy. And if I may be so bold as to suggest- I have a plan for that:

And a model from the Marshall Plan:


This might just work, if instead of a radio drama you filmed it in black and white and snuck it onto Turner Classic Movies. Bonus points if you could get a female star from that era, say Angie Dickinson, to ride in on a white horse, shoot the badge right off the chest of the unfit sheriff, and return the town to order and prosperity by implementing Warren-esque policies that run the crooks out of town. My MAGA-hat wearing elder family members would eat that right up.


There are things about Bernie I like…one thing I do not is old white dude. I am really kind of tired of old white dudes.

Warren/Harris would be more to my liking and I don’t care which is P or VP.

Also…traditionally a Presidential candidate never selects a former adversary for the nominee as a running mate. Usually they have that choice planned out long before they even win the nomination.


I would like her very much to be our president. Second favorite would to have her as Secretary of Commerce. But a question I would like to ask all democratic candidates, is would you enact legislation like this, if not, why?

1 Like

I’m kind of tired of bland neoliberal “centrists” and I don’t give a flying fuck about the identity groups that a non-neoliberal candidate belongs to. I want a candidate that aligns with my ideas, and that’s why I hope the Democrats pick Warren or Sanders.


I’ve got a pretty good idea that this can be achieved using market forces, evading the political chicanery.

Harris’ strength is powerful delivery of message. She is good on social issues like immigration, policing, etc, but empty on finance and economy.

Warren is like her opposite. I’m also tired of old white guys, but old jewish white guys from Brooklyn fall outside of that data set for me. More important is a good balance between social and finance issues – and strong in both.


And part of that tradition is the the Veep is usually somebody somewhat UNLIKE them to appeal to those who are not big fans of the nominee. You grab 'em for the votes and then ignore them once in office. So Biden/Harris is a more likely pairing. I would have said Biden/Warren, but he spend so much time in the Senate carrying water for the Credit Card companies that I can’t see her accepting the VP nod from him.
edited to add: so to follow the “somewhat disimilar” idea, perhaps a Warren/Beto ticket. Beto being young*, male, and moderate would seem to compliment rather than mirror Warren.
*some wag once said that the Biden and Bernie served to make Warren look young by comparison.


I have to be honest…like the others pointed out above (@lava @Purplecat ) Bernie less fits the stereotype of old white dude, I agree with that…Biden fits it to a tee. I don’t want Biden anywhere near anything anymore…retire, spend your days sniffing barbie doll’s hair, whatever…just get out.

I really love Harris and Warren as a nominees.


Yeah, it’s true. The only counterexample I can think of, since the modern primary process was put in place, is in 1980 when Reagan chose Bush, his main rival in the primaries that year.

However, there’s an interesting countervailing force at play. Among prominent Democrats who would make a good running mate, are there even any out there who aren’t already running for president? That being the case, there could be a “last two standing” effect, possibly. (Though if Biden gets edged out, as I expect to happen eventually, he’s of course not going to accept the VP role a second time!)


Lots of exceptions to that rule on both sides of the aisle. Obama defeated Biden for the party nomination in 2008 before selecting him for VP. Reagan did the same with George Bush Sr.

Lincoln’s VP wasn’t just a political rival, he was a member of the opposition party during the most divided time in our nation’s history.