Are you sure you want to delete this post?
I think the problem for lack of support for progressive policies is lack of understanding. Hillary took a 180 crack at identifying the problem but let it slide.
In a February 2016 debate Hillary said to Bernie:
“While we’re talking about votes, you’re the one who voted to deregulate swaps and derivatives in 2000, which contributed to the overleveraging of Lehman Brothers, which was one of the culprits that brought down the economy,” Clinton said. “I’m not impugning your motive because you voted to deregulate swaps and derivatives. People make mistakes.”
Hillary correctly identified the evil of derivatives and the CFMA. But after that debate Hillary went back into "the economy is fine and just needs tuning" rhetoric. She had to do that or else she would have to criticize Obama's presidency.
The problem with derivatives is they encourage risky betting with other people's money. Look at Greece. Without derivatives big lenders would have had to lend money secured with solid real equity. Without derivatives lending money to Greece it would have been a real risk. The lenders would have had to take a real interest in the loan or not issue the loan. If people understood the real and imminent danger of derivatives then a progressive agenda would be more palpable. In this country eliminating derivatives would leave hundreds of billions of dollars looking for a job. Big lenders can't passively sit on other people's money. Big lenders would search out new ways to make money. New, revised or better products and services would be the new money makers. That would mean more jobs and more spending making more jobs and more spending. Prosperity. Everybody would benefit , everybody. That would create a real and stable market. Profits and value would come from real earnings. Inflation would be in check because unearned fees would not need money to service. There is absolutely nothing wrong with prosperity.