This is rolling back a brand new rule, correct? Per the article:

The Congressional Review Act authorizes Congress to review and cancel regulations that were introduced by federal agencies in the last six months. Congress must complete the review process within 60 legislative days after a federal agency submits a rule for review.

Doesn't seem to me like they're 'rolling back regulation', only squelching one that was newly introduced at the end of Obama's term.

Good.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Technically correct, although my read of it is that the rule came into existence in 2010 with Dodd-Frank, but was subsequently fought in court. So it was 'recently' enacted once the court case worked to completion.

Of course. But why crush the guy's thread in post #2?

Okay everyone, back to hysterics over tweets.

the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 outlawed bribes. This I what stopped the practice of bribes. Unless you are willing to serve time in jail for your job.

Using your own quoted post, should I change "rolls back regulation" to "cancel regulation". Would that make it better?

That's not my quote. I don't think it's Brownie's quote, either.

You should be happy that Congress is back involved in it's role in governing the country. Obama's pen and phone are hasta la vista.

I didn't say I'm unhappy about it. I said in my original post that I believe an argument can be made either way for and against this particular regulation. I do think POTUS will do his hardest (as he promised and his constituents want) to roll back as much government regulation on business as possible. I'm interested to see the long lasting impact that has on our country.

Will Trump's dream of an unfettered business / commerce system lift all Americans? It could, it might not. It will be an interesting experiment.

I personally believe the rules were put in place for a reason. I also know I'm much better at planning military operations and military manpower programs than I am in developing national and global economic strategy. I personally feel safe because I married very well and maintain a very healthy government pension by maintaining a heart beat. So I get to watch the experiment and comment here in the LR on my opinions of it.

I think that many people in many "developed" nations have paid a heavy price for globalisation, the export of their jobs and the resulting decrease in standard of living

However the various movement's that are rising in these countries playing on peoples desires to reverse this trend are a fantasy

If anyone thinks the global tire manufacturing companies will be returning to ohio they are kidding themselves

People in the west have lost whilst people in the far east and asia have seen a rise in living standards and if we collectively think for a second their leadership is going to roll over we are probably in for a shock

http://rodrik.typepad.com

He writes on globalisation and i think offers a lot of insights on the various policy implications

At the very least he appears to have given it some thought which is perhaps more than the current president

And this is bad why? Companies still cannot bribe other countries and there are a whole host of other laws that address this. Dodd Frank just addresses components of the bank acting as an enforcer, which I think is inappropriate and didn't belong in this omnibus law designed to address systemic risk and consumer service issues around banks? What does oil companies and their affairs have to do with banks and customer?

Like I said it is already addressed in the below law and several others. I had to attend significant training in several different companies I worked for on the below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/...orrupt_Practices_Act

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

I guess my question to any who got but hurt about this (not you) would be for them to explain what it does, why is it there and how is their concerns, real or imagined not addressed by other rules.

You said it was likely important and why it was there to begin with. I argue that you get a whole bunch of politicians who have pet ideas and that is how things unrelated to a goal get put into laws. The purpose of Dodd Frank was to address the systemic risk that our concentration of banking created. It then extended to certain consumer protections related to the financial services industry. Problem is, it wasn't specific. It included things like swipe fees, regulatory reporting, created consumer protection entities with ambiguous mandates and almost unlimited power, etc. etc. etc. It then added provisions unrelated to banking and systemic risk like this one. Why are we forcing banks to play a role as overseers of the transactions of major companies? Basically there are already rules that address bribes and corrupt practices by corporations. Idiots like Elizabeth Warren think that you can legislate every loophole or workaround to that out of existence. You can't. But you can add cost that is then passed onto the consumer or eliminates smaller companies altogether further concentrating market share to big banks.

Would it surprise you that since dodd-frank the number of local and regional banks have shrunk while the top five banks have grown bigger? Sometimes double their size? Would it surprise you that this is a direct result of dodd frank? WHile banks certainly don't like the cost, banks like my employer and our competitor have the means to address these regulations. First Virginia Bank doesn't. But the follow of politicians is that they think you can put rules in place that basically address every concern, meanwhile you created a more systemic risk by concentrating even more capital, more assets, and more market share to the vary banks that caused the problems in 2007. And you think these same idiots have any idea whether what they put in law is a good idea?

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Interesting details on the topic in your post, banking playing cop for big oil. To your last point (demise of small/regional banks and growth of "big banks"), while there may be causation, I'd have to see more developed linkage of the variables in play. As a trained statistician, I know you can make numbers say anything given enough data. I'm not disagreeing with you out of hand (or agreeing with you either), I would just like to see a detailed argument with the direct math tying Dodd-Frank to the demise of banks. That's not for this thread.

Pulling back the stick, I just thought it would be enlightening (as it has been) to bring up actual acts (not tweets) of POTUS and discuss them. Learning has occurred (for me). Which is why I come / post here.

Google is your friend, but I'm happy to help out.

http://www.nytimes.com/...ting-community-banks

When regulations – not consumers – drive consolidation, banking system risk increases. Dodd-Frank’s “Wall Street” focus snares community banks in an increasingly complex web of rules designed for larger banks.

This one sounds almost verbatim to my criticism and I haven't even read anything lately about Dodd Frank.

http://www.investors.com/...nk-must-be-reformed/

http://wkbn.com/...orms-dodd-frank-law/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...m_term=.efa17cb42d4c

More than a dozen Washington area banks and credit unions have merged with one another in recent years, citing heightened regulation as a factor. Others have done away with mortgage divisions and clamped down on consumer loans. At least one local bank has expanded its compliance team seven-fold to 35 full-time employees in four years.

https://www.cato.org/...ing-under-dodd-frank

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Read the NY Times article you linked to. Even the comment-ers to that article had differing opinions as to direct linkage. Again, not saying I disagree or agree with you. I just think there could be numerous causes "small banks" have shrunk in size. Dodd-Frank is probably one of them. The 2008 market crash and associated loans defaulting is probably another. As well as individual banking markets and individual banking practices.. I'm not willing to paint the small banking industry shrinkage with the Dodd-Frank paint brush. But again, I don't claim to be a banking expert, nor will a couple of links make me one.

Absolutely and one of the articles suggest other causes play a role as well but reconciles it. You also have to rely on bank CEO.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden