It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The bold emphasis is mine
The Democratic senator from New Jersey has received scads of progressive disdain over the years for his close ties to financial elites. But Booker diverged from his typical rhetorical deference to Wall Street in a heated speech from the Senate floor on Thursday, blasting "very connected special interests" with "armies of high-paid lobbyists" for rolling back protections against risky trading "at the heart of the 2008 fiscal crisis."
"This is wrong," Booker said. "I'm outraged. I am frustrated that we are not on the floor debating this and instead are having this put into a bill that everyone says must pass."
Lots of info in the article.
On December 11, 2014, the US House passed a bill repealing the Dodd-Frank requirement that risky derivatives be pushed into big-bank subsidiaries, leaving our deposits and pensions exposed to massive derivatives losses. The bill was vigorously challenged by Senator Elizabeth Warren; but the tide turned when Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorganChase, stepped into the ring. Perhaps what prompted his intervention was the unanticipated $40 drop in the price of oil. As financial blogger Michael Snyder points out, that drop could trigger a derivatives payout that could bankrupt the biggest banks. And if the G20’s new “bail-in” rules are formalized, depositors and pensioners could be on the hook.
The new bail-in rules were discussed in my last post here. They are edicts of the Financial Stability Board (FSB), an unelected body of central bankers and finance ministers headquartered in the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland. Where did the FSB get these sweeping powers, and is its mandate legally enforceable?
The Global Bankers’ Coup: Bail-In and the Shadowy Financial Stability Board