Here is an example of why following politics is not about “what” but about “who”.
That means it’s imperative that names are named and context provided in as much detail as needed.
There are many people, including me, who blame the repeal of Glass-Steagall for enabling the financial crisis. Who lobbied for it? Sandy Weill, of Citibank, among others. The repeal profited Weill.
Now, ten years and counting after that heist, here comes Weill to co-opt, for his own motives, the perfectly legitimate demand to break up the banks.
Except, since it comes out of Weill’s mouth, it’s not longer a legitimate move to defend against financial terrorism against the population.
It will have to be rejected.
Naturally, those who are hip to this kind of thing (like the ever so sharp Bob English over at EPJ) then look like turn-coats or defenders of the status-quo. Of course, they are not. They are just too clever to be played.
But you would need to know the concrete particulars of what’s happening to know that. You can’t just follow some ideological script.
Following the twists and turns takes unremitting hard work, which Mr. Wenzel and Mr. English amply provide on their deservedly popular masculinist and finance-capital-friendly blog.
[They like to retweet Rupert Murdoch more than I would be happy to. But when they catch one of these kinds of moves, it’s worth putting up with Uncle Rupert…]
“Bob English emails to explain how Weill should make a few more bucks if the Return of Glass-Stegall [sic] comes to a bank near you:
This is like when Lord Evelyn [Rothschild] condescends himself to an interview with the Money Honey. Something big is in the works and Weill is the oligarch delivering the message today. This is likely part of the battle for the new payments system. But, Weill, post-Citi, isn’t lobbying on behalf of the banks anymore. As you probably know, Weill is ex-AmEx, but he also now has links to MasterCard:
Someone has to take the fall as part of the generation of political will to enact drastic new legislation that splits retail and institutional banking (if not the currency system itself, per Mervyn King’s suggestion). This is far bigger than the pusillanimous Volcker Rule, and I think it will eventually involve the repeal or amendment of the BHC Act, as I alluded to on the last CA appearance. LIBOR would seem to be but one battle front against the banks (though a major one).”
None of the entrenched financial interests want to be left in the dust when tech is allowed to enter the field (especially, the CIA vis a vis AmEx and MC). So the Weill interview looks like the payment processors are throwing the banks under the bus to keep as much of the action as possible.”