Schmidt, capital requirements can be gamed. And by raising them, the honest banks are in more danger of 'failing' as in a downturn they could end up capital deficient based on the new higher levels of capital required when they otherwise would not have failed based on the old capital requirements. That makes banking more expensive and is a burden on the small banks.
Dodd-Frank is Wall Street neoliberal spit shine on a deeply problematic crony capitalist system (massive otherworldly levels of socialism for rich people).
Passing new regulations, when the previous regulations were violated and no one was punished, is not reform.
There has to be personal responsibility and accountability.
Meanwhile, our Government still has 2 FBI agents per industry to investigate white-collar financial fraud and they can't walk a beat with that many companies and organizations to cover; they need criminal referrals from the relevant federal agencies to alert them and that process has been willfully dismantled under Bush-Obama. We still lack the proper effective enforcement to police the banking and financial sectors. Those that do not understand this are the ones truly out to lunch.
Okay, I cannot claim that I understand everything about the nuances of Dodd Frank. I listened to Robert Reich and Bernie Franks argue several points on MSNBC the other day. Each was talking across the other...hardly listening, but Frank seemed to have the upper hand to me.
One thing I respect about Hillary Clinton is that she is intellectually very smart and she does her homework . The Benghazi hearings bear that out. So when she posts on her website the details and thinking behind her proposals, she is being transparent about them, and in effect asking others to vet them. Nothing would be more embarrassing to Hillary than to find major flaws in her thinking. As I have said in another post, she has been under the microscope her entire adult career, and knows that anything that she says or writes will be scrutinized by experts in the field. She doesn't throw out proposals that are not workable.
So I call your attention to her website again...her proposal entitled: Hillary Clinton: Wall Street Should Work for Main Street
Unlike some of you guys, I don't claim to be an expert in derivatives and such, but I can read proposals like hers and they seem to make sense to me. However, she is not really putting her proposals there to be scrutinized by me...maybe just the upfront part. She is putting them there to be scrutinized by economists. And economists do in fact ask her questions about areas that seem vague. That's the way the system works.
Most of the economist articles I have read on Bernie Sanders proposals state they don't have enough information to judge or that he has made some sweeping assumptions that make them cringe. Is that fair? When questioned, however, Bernie seems to get a bit "testy" which also gives the impression he hasn't thought through his proposals as carefully as he would appear to have based on his stump speeches. If Hillary Clinton is going to sit down with the New York Daily News, I would expect more coherent responses to questions than Bernie provided.
I looked at just about all of Hillary's proposals. Off hand I might have some doubts on some of the issues. But one thing I can say for sure. They are not "bullshit". Hillary doesn't put out bullshit to be scrutinized by experts.
Take a closer look at the above link from her website and then direct me to a comparable analysis on one of Bernie's websites. When he provides that kind of clarity then maybe I'll be less critical.