After the first debate, Paul Krugman said that Hillary's financial reform plan made a better case for preventing another financial crisis. He went on to say that financiers had a vested interest to elect a Republican.
And during the second debate, Hillary one again mentioned taking on these shadow banking practices. I respect Paul Krugman and he’s not one to hold his tongue. When he says Hillary is very much included in any Democrat reforming Wall Street, I believe him.
Hillary still makes the better case and Wall Street doesn't want any Democrat elected, period.
www.nytimes.com/…
For what it’s worth, Mrs. Clinton had the better case. Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake. But it’s not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers, which don’t take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasn’t.
But is Mrs. Clinton’s promise to take a tough line on the financial industry credible? Or would she, once in the White House, return to the finance-friendly, deregulatory policies of the 1990s?
Well, if Wall Street’s attitude and its political giving are any indication, financiers themselves believe that any Democrat, Mrs. Clinton very much included, would be serious about policing their industry’s excesses. And that’s why they’re doing all they can to elect a Republican.