Michael Maiello's picture

    Wall Street Should Be Terrified?

    By Michael Maiello on Sun, 06/15/2014 - 8:47pm | Politics

    Interesting post at Business Insider about how the loss of Eric Cantor is a blow to Wall Street.  The establishment Republicans love the Street while the Tea Party insurgents are enemies of finance and friends of the real economy.  I used to actually buy something like that when, during the financial crisis, I saw an opportunity for anti-bailouts liberals and libertarians to make common cause but... that was a mirage.

    The Tea Party is not anti-Wall Street.  It is, in fact, Wall Street funded.  The Tea Party was seeded by the Kochs and Freedom works.  Heck, I remember when Steve Forbes showed up to a Forbes on Fox taping during the financial crisis sporting a gold tea bag on his lapel. Steve was part of Freedom Works.

    Besides, the start of the Tea Party was the Santelli Rant.  It was pure "blame the borrowers" not "blame the banks" rhetoric.  While it is true that some of these Tea Partiers want to do things that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn't like (particularly, not raising the debt ceiling and forcing a default on U.S. Treasury bonds), the Tea Party is not truly anti-Wall Street.  It is, at worst, ignorant of what Wall Street wants and needs.

    Were the Tea Party to complete its takeover of the Republicans, Wall Street would respond by... educating its new representatives.  I expect they'd fall quickly into line. The only reason it hasn't happened already is that it hasn't been necessary and, I suspect, some of this right wing faux-populism has been useful PR for the powers that be.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    ICYMI, this link I posted to In the News a few days ago is from a banking trade magazine, subscription rate ~$2000/year. It discusses some concerns the finance industry has about Cantor's loss, his possible successors and the division within the GOP as well. Maybe they are not terrified but are definitely very concerned about disruptions to their standard operations.

    What Cantor's Surprise Ouster Means for Banks

    Most of the magazine's articles are firewalled and I have not been able to read later ones. I got this one from an open Google search I have for Frannie.

     

     


    by EmmaZahn on Mon, 06/16/2014 - 8:36am

    The makings of a good conspiracy theory is when you can claim that the more it is denied by the powers that be, the more it proves the truth behind the conspiracy theory. In this case, the more the bankers claim to be upset by Cantor's ouster in favor of Brat, the more one can believe they were behind it. Obviously one can see the danger behind such thinking, but…

    …not all conspiracy theories are wrong! wink

    (I don't claim to have a tenth of the knowledge of finance that you or Maiello have, so obviously my off-hand comment is as much a joke as anything.)

    Edit to add: I don't really buy into a conspiracy, nor am I suggesting that Maeillo is suggesting one. But, I do think that Maiello's larger point is right. The banking powers-that-be will quickly find a way to subvert Brat, and I suspect it won't take much effort at all.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 06/16/2014 - 11:26am

    The flaw in your theory in this instance, that the bankers are playing B'rer Rabbit regarding Cantor's ouster, is that that this particular article is bankers talking among themselves. I thought the $2000/yr subscription price gave that away.

    As for bankers finding a way to subvert Brat, I doubt they will find anyway to do that until after he is elected as they would view his Democratic opponent as at least equally unsuitable. I did read somewhere else that Cantor's loss was being treated as a wake up call for political donations from Wall Street to 'establishment' candidates. Following the money is a good way to separate real from feigned support and that should be easy enough to confirm soon.

    Honestly I would not think they would perceive Brat's election as much of a problem. It was the loss of Cantor as Majority Leader. That's the election they were most interested in. That and the worrisome possibility of their pet party is getting out of their control.

     


    by EmmaZahn on Mon, 06/16/2014 - 1:34pm

    the worrisome possibility of their pet party is getting out of their control.

    One of the interesting facets of the results of this particular primary race was that Cantor's loss was due in part to his district being reconfigured to include more rural areas, and that it was these folks in part that turned to the person who wasn't flying around being a party leader and not coming home to the district to listen to them. 

    Money can buy one a lot of control in politics, but it can't ultimately buy people's votes - that is what is so worrisome to them I think.  Regardless of his stance on the issues, the fact that a number of people voted for him rather than Cantor the incumbent and all his cash (which even in these topsy turvy days remains around 80% re-elected) does give one a little hope that a healthy representative democracy, or at least people's desire to be truly represented by someone who reflects their views (again, putting aside that one's opinion of those views), is not quite dead in this country.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 06/16/2014 - 1:45pm

    There's a (very small) bit of optimist in me who hopes that Brat is actually more liberal than people are reading him out to be. He's already said that he doesn't think that government should legislate against gay marriages (of course, this goes along with him wanting a smaller government, but at least he doesn't apply it inconsistently there).


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 06/16/2014 - 2:17pm

    Oh, would that it were so. This guy is against ANY minimum wage. He is against the ACA, he is a typical Rand Paul libertarian, and he is a disaster for his district, but probably it's best that Cantor got what he deserved. With any luck Brat will lose (unlikely) but if people vote for Brat, then they also get what they deserve. 


    by CVille Dem on Mon, 06/16/2014 - 8:02pm

    Aha, but it just so happened to be an article that you could link to! wink (I am having fun here.)

    When I said "subvert" Brat, I didn't mean to harm his chances of getting elected, but rather to turn him, to make him one of theirs. That's what I doubt will be very difficult. (You're absolutely right however about the money being a reliable indicator of true support from Wall Street.)


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 06/16/2014 - 2:15pm

    No, youi're being an ass. There are other articles I can get to but only with considerable effort. Why bother when I can just wait a while for the posts to show up in more accessible places.

    It is amazing (and sort of sickening) how eager the 'progressive' blogosphere was to pigeon-hole Brat as quickly as possible, even more so than Wall Street. Talk about terrifying.

    Like Trope, I see positives in Brat's toppling of Cantor despite reservations about his very libertarian sounding inclinations. 

     


    by EmmaZahn on Mon, 06/16/2014 - 3:33pm

    By "having fun", I meant that I wasn't being serious. It sounds like you're taking my lark seriously. I apologize for not being more clear. I had no intent to upset you.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 06/16/2014 - 3:39pm

    Hope all you want.  This guy is against everything that helps people. I don't know about the "progressive Blogosphere" but from where I sit in Charlottesville Virginia, I am just glad that this guy is going to be very low in seniority in Congress.  


    by CVille Dem on Mon, 06/16/2014 - 8:11pm

    The only thing I got out of the excerpt from the article is that bankers seem to think things will be different and are unsure if they may be somewhat better off without Cantor.  This is the only quote that even mentioned him:

    In the short term, Cantor's loss likely gives Hensarling and Neugebauer, R-Texas, a crucial leg up in negotiations over the reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which expires at the end of the year. Conservatives charge that the private sector should bear more of the costs in the event of an attack, and some even question whether the government should provide a backstop for terrorism insurance at all.
    Analysts predicted that Congress will ultimately extend the program by yearend, but House Republicans may be able to drive a slightly harder bargain with the Senate absent concerns that Cantor will cut them out of the dealmaking process, as happened over the flood insurance negotiations earlier this year.
     
    They seem from what I read, to feel pretty OK with all this; just a lot of naval gazing imho

    by CVille Dem on Mon, 06/16/2014 - 9:07pm

    Absolutely right with a caveat. Pro-market capitalists have co-opted all the national Tea Party organizations, and Wall Street is hardly in any danger from the right. That said, some Tea Party activists do have anti-Wall Street sympathies. Cantor is a casualty of such populist leanings, which could conceivably fester in the future.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 06/16/2014 - 5:25pm

    Latest Comments