Want killer financial regulation? Just combine Bernie Sanders' plan with Hillary Clinton's.
Two great bank-smashing tastes that taste great together!
![The perfect counter to reckless Wall Street?](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/9ARf7oxMU5wgJvAcXyVBcC-415-80.jpg)
![Ryan Cooper](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/nuBnwuoYrzDzWHmGo3pKBS.png)
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are having, by 2016 standards at least, an intelligent and productive debate about the proper form of financial regulation. Even more astonishing, the proposals are actually complementary rather than exclusive. It's two great bank-smashing tastes that taste great together!
Each reform perspective is a rather good encapsulation of the candidate's personality. Clinton's ideas, leveraging her command of the intelligent but timid Democratic Party policy apparatus, focus on a fine-grained understanding of the financial sector and empowering the regulatory apparatus to control it. Sanders mainly wants to bludgeon Wall Street with a cricket bat — crushing Big Finance's political power by slashing bank size and attacking their profitability with deliberately onerous regulation.
Aspects of both proposals will be needed for any comprehensive reform — strong and vigilant regulation, one major task of which is simply capping the power and profitability of finance.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
![https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516-320-80.jpg)
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Mike Konczal has a great deep dive into the weeds of each candidate's proposals. The main axis of disagreement is shadow banking. This set of institutions, like the great trusts of financial crises past, was basically designed to evade banking regulations — providing bank-like functions without having to follow annoying federal rules about not taking insane risks. Sanders proposes to break up the largest banks within a couple years and reinstitute Depression-era laws separating commercial and investment banking. Clinton wants to bring shadow banking under the aegis of the regulatory apparatus — the idea being that if it isn't, there will continue to be a risk of a "bank run" in the capital markets.
Meanwhile, Matt Yglesias has a great post rooting this debate in the history of the presidential campaign of 1912, with Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt playing the roles of Sanders and Clinton respectively. While both perspectives have merit, there is a real difference in outlook. Just as in those days, Clinton is much more sympathetic to the general idea of high finance, while Sanders views the entire enterprise with his trademark acidic skepticism.
Obviously the details of regulation are extremely important, but it's worth thinking more generally about what the financial system is supposed to do. Finance accounts for about half of nonfarm corporate profits and over 6 percent of GDP (both more than doubled since the postwar age), and New York remains the world's leading financial center. This quite naturally generates a perspective among financial employees and hangers-on that all their incomprehensibly well-remunerated activities are a necessary part of America's economic engine. Excessive regulation, then, risks killing the golden goose.
This is nonsense.
Take Brad DeLong's account of how the financial industry was regulated during and after World War II. The war effort involved the most borrowing in American history, and afterward the government used "financial repression" — enormous regulatory force dedicated to forcing as many bonds down the throat of a prostrate banking sector as possible — to guard against inflation or a bond market death spiral. That was eased after a few years, but for roughly the next three decades, financial regulation was still extremely strict, and finance was a boring, safe economic backwater, fit for the mediocre third sons of actual businessmen.
On standard economic theory, this should harm economic growth as it interferes with the process of mobilizing risk-bearing capital. That's certainly what Sanders' and Clinton's Republican opponents would say. But nothing of the sort happened — on the contrary, the following generation saw the greatest economic boom in American history before or since. So much for the Big Finance apologists!
To return to the two Democrats' plans, I think Clinton's idea to build on Dodd-Frank (which has been an underrated success) is somewhat more grounded and realistic than Sanders'. But where Sanders is unquestionably right is in how that plan must be implemented: with a determination bordering on zealotry. As Haley Sweetland Edwards has explored in depth, any financial reform effort is met with endless legal trench warfare from the big banks.
Sanders' proposal to break Big Finance's economic and political power by brutally breaking apart banks is thus a very worthy idea. The point isn't that bigger banks are necessarily more dangerous than smaller ones — Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were relatively small — but that it's much easier to bring them to heel when necessary.
During the financial crisis, the FDIC liquidated hundreds of small banks. Few aside from Duncan Black even noticed.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.
-
'Is the death penalty racist? Of course it is.'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
Today's political cartoons - May 8, 2024
Cartoons Wednesday's cartoons - social media guilt, gag orders, and more
By The Week US Published
-
Boy Scouts changes name to Scouting America
Speed Read The organization is rebranding, citing inclusivity
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Arizona court reinstates 1864 abortion ban
Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published