Michael Moore's doing a media blitz to mark the DVD release of "Capitalism: A Love Story" and after a couple of delays, I finally get to talk briefly to him Tuesday afternoon.

I first note he's a Crooks and Liars fan. "Oh yeah, it's great. I try to post whatever I can to lead to your site. It's bold and brave," he says. ("Bold and brave." I like it. Sounds like a movie review, right?)

"When you first started making movies, people were saying, 'Oh, that far-left Michael Moore'," I say. "It seems to me that with each movie, you were a little bit ahead of the curve and then people catch up with you. Has that been your experience?"

"That's exactly what happened," he says. "I haven't changed but the country has changed. People are not only catching onto the lies they've been told, they've become more progressive themselves. Now I'm not just that guy in the baseball cap."

When he first started appearing on television, that class bias in the media worked against him. "It was almost like, okay, we had this blue-collar working class guy on, and now we don't have to have another one for a year," I say.

"Oh yeah, absolutely. Let me give you an example of class bias in the media. Yesterday there were all these really serious things going on: the banking regulation proposal, what happened with Biden in Israel. And the story on NBC evening news and CBS news was ... the runaway Prius! That, and the rainstorm in New York. The announcer says, 'Let's go to the hardest hit city,' and it's Greenwich, Connecticut! Oh, the humanity!" he says, letting loose his trademark belly laugh.

Then he's serious again.

"The mainstream media is a huge distraction, and I have no doubt this is purposely done," he says. "It's a system of enforced ignorance to keep people dumb."

If liberal bloggers worked 24/7, 365 days a year, they couldn't begin to catch all the media distortions, I say - and people probably wouldn't want to hear it. Maybe our efforts would be better spent telling people not to watch television.

"If you're talking about a 50-year-old white guy, yeah," he agrees.

"Young people don't even watch the news anymore. They watch Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart," I say.

"But young people, by watching less news, are becoming more informed. Something new and good will come out of that. It was young people who put the first African-American president in the White House," he says.

I mention my pet peeve: the right-wing viral emails that go unanswered, pushing erroneous info into the less-informed voting public. "I try to talk to other liberals about it, and their attitude is, well, 'here's a white paper, these are the facts, now they'll agree with us'. Too much emphasis on the facts, not enough on the emotions."

"That was one of the criticisms people made about me from the beginning," he says. "But I'm only honoring what any good storyteller tries to do: convey the truth through emotion."

I end by asking him what's next. "Your movie kind of ended on a down note..."

"Not for me!" he interrupts, chortling. (At the end of "Capitalism" he says that if people don't take action, he won't be making another film.)

Then he becomes serious. "I want to see if people see the movie and say, 'What are we gonna do tomorrow?' You can't go home and say 'yay Mike, great film' You have to do something.

"I'm waiting to see if people will rise up, and if so, I'll rise with them."

This is very, very interesting news. Is the White House serious, or is this a pro-consumer doggie biscuit to keep the left wing off their back? Here's hoping it's the real thing:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration waded into negotiations over Wall Street regulations Wednesday, calling for limits on the size of financial institutions and insisting that consumer protections remain a central objective of legislative attempts to rein in the industry.

In the Senate, talks continued on how to create a consumer protection entity. Republicans pressing for a watered-down consumer agency even as they voiced optimism that they could reach a deal with Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, within a week.

The Treasury Department circulated proposed legislation that would prevent commercial banks from carrying out high-risk trades and that would restrict the size of financial firms to holdings no greater than 10 percent of the entire financial industry's liabilities. That restriction would apply only to firms that grow through a merger or an acquisition.

Consumer protections and doing away with financial firms deemed too big to fail are two of the key elements of the legislative efforts to overhaul the rules that govern Wall Street and prevent a recurrence of the 2008 financial crisis. In reiterating its points, the administration was making certain its views were being heard in the Senate at a sensitive time in negotiations between Dodd and Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (640)

PLAYS: (730)

Embed

Today President Obama had a meeting with a group of leading bankers -- CEOs from firms like Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, and Goldman Sachs -- to talk about the need for banks to start getting the money that's going into banks' reserves right now start flowing into the economy in the form of lending activity.

But Obama also talked about the bigger picture -- namely, the absolute need to reinstate many of the financial-sector regulations that were torn down in the past decade and more, which led to the economic disaster we're now trying to recover from:

We also discussed the need to pass meaningful financial reform that will protect American consumers from exploitation and American -- the American economy from another financial crisis of the kind which we just came out of.

I noted the resistance of many of the financial sectors to these reforms -- the industry has lobbied vigorously against some of them -- some of these reforms on Capitol Hill. So I made it clear that it is both in the country's interest -- and ultimately, in the financial industry's interest -- to have updated rules of the road to prevent abuse and excess. Short-term gains are of little value to our banks if they lead to long-term chaos in the economy.

And I made very clear that I have no intention of letting their lobbyists thwart reforms necessary to protect the American people. If they wish to fight common-sense consumer protections, that's a fight I'm more than willing to have.

The way I see it, having recovered with the help of the American government and the American taxpayers, our banks now have a greater obligation to the goal of a wider recovery, a more stable system, and more broadly shared prosperity.

So I urged them to work with us in Congress to finish the job of reforming our financial system to bring transparency and accountability to the financial markets; to ensure that the failure of one bank or financial institution won't spread throughout the entire system, and to help protect consumers from misleading and dishonest practices with products like credit and debit cards, with mortgages and auto and payday loans.

Now, I should note that around the table all the financial industry executives said they supported financial regulatory reform. The problem is there's a big gap between what I'm hearing here in the White House and the activities of lobbyists on behalf of these institutions or associations of which they're a member up on Capitol Hill. I urged them to close that gap, and they assured me that they would make every effort to do so.

In the end, my interest isn't in vilifying any one person or institution or industry; it's not to dictate to them or micromanage their compensation practices to ensure that consumers and -- my job is to ensure that consumers and the larger economy are protected from risky speculation and predatory practices, that credit is flowing, that businesses can grow, and jobs are once again being created at the pace we need.

Susie already pointed out the latest Paul Krugman column on this very subject, complete with a history lesson:

America emerged from the Great Depression with a tightly regulated banking system. The regulations worked: the nation was spared major financial crises for almost four decades after World War II. But as the memory of the Depression faded, bankers began to chafe at the restrictions they faced. And politicians, increasingly under the influence of free-market ideology, showed a growing willingness to give bankers what they wanted.

The first big wave of deregulation took place under Ronald Reagan — and quickly led to disaster, in the form of the savings-and-loan crisis of the 1980s. Taxpayers ended up paying more than 2 percent of G.D.P., the equivalent of around $300 billion today, to clean up the mess.

But the proponents of deregulation were undaunted, and in the decade leading up to the current crisis politicians in both parties bought into the notion that New Deal-era restrictions on bankers were nothing but pointless red tape. In a memorable 2003 incident, top bank regulators staged a photo-op in which they used garden shears and a chainsaw to cut up stacks of paper representing regulations.

And the bankers — liberated both by legislation that removed traditional restrictions and by the hands-off attitude of regulators who didn’t believe in regulation — responded by dramatically loosening lending standards. The result was a credit boom and a monstrous real estate bubble, followed by the worst economic slump since the Great Depression. Ironically, the effort to contain the crisis required government intervention on a much larger scale than would have been needed to prevent the crisis in the first place: government rescues of troubled institutions, large-scale lending by the Federal Reserve to the private sector, and so on.

But the financial sector -- and their friends in the Republican Party and the conservative movement -- are in complete and utter denial about this, as Krugman went on to explore vividly. Apparently, they're willing to completely wreck the economy all over again just for the sake of hanging onto one of the remaining scraps of conservative dogma -- namely, that deregulation is innately good, because government is innately bad.

The fact is that the financial sector, particularly these big banks, have been flooding the Hill with lobbyists working hard to knock down any attempts to reinstate post-Depression regulations. Just ask Rep. Peter DeFazio, who is trying get the Glass-Steagall Act reinstated.

But because it is so intellectually and ethically bankrupt and so desperate to retain some semblance of power, the American Right is completely in the throes of denialism, which is best defined as "the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none."

So we get nonsense about the Community Reinvestment Act and how lazy shiftless minorities were the reasons for the Bush Recession.

At some point, the right-wing obfuscation has to stop. You'd think they'd realize it's in their own economic self-interest to stop. But that's like expecting a scorpion not to sting a dog on whose back it's crossing a river.

Interesting. So Dodd's proposal would effectively remove Sheila Bair's role as one of the few senior administration officials advocating for consumers. (We already know bankers don't like her.) Still, it sounds like a few good ideas here, I'll wait to see how this shakes out.

Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Christopher Dodd will propose creating a single U.S. regulator that would strip the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. of bank-supervision authority, said a person familiar with the matter.

Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, would eliminate the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision and fold the Treasury Department units into the new bank regulator, according to the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan isn’t public. The Connecticut Democrat is scheduled to release a draft of his financial-regulation overhaul plan today in Washington.

“It makes sense to have one regulator that deals with supervision,” Gilbert Schwartz, a former Fed attorney and a partner at Washington law firm Schwartz & Ballen LLP, said in an interview. “You’ll see a real battle by the Fed and the FDIC to retain their supervisory authority.”

Dodd has faulted the U.S. bank regulation system, saying it encourages charter shopping and a “race to the bottom” by agencies to win oversight roles. His proposal goes further than proposals by President Barack Obama and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank to merge the OTS and OCC.

[...] Dodd will also propose creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, a council of regulators to monitor large firms for disruptive effects on the industry and the economy, and giving the FDIC power to unwind failed firms whose collapse in bankruptcy could shake the economy, the person said.

We're going to have to watch this corporatist tool like a hawk. Not as if we didn't have to watch Dodd, mind you, but still:

If Senator Tim Johnson ascends to the chairmanship of the Senate Banking Committee, the biggest winners will be Wall Street, pay-day lenders and credit card companies. The biggest losers: widows and orphans.

No, really.

In late 2006, the South Dakotan spoke out against an effort by his fellow Democrats to cap the interest rates that members of the military pay for short-term loans. "This time it's military. Who's to say it isn't going to be widows and orphans or other sympathetic groups in the future?" he griped in an interview with the American Banker.

That's the man who's next in line to lead the Banking Committee if the current chair, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), as expected, vacates the position to take the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee chair left empty by the death of Ted Kennedy.

Meanwhile, Democrats are hoping to push through the most sweeping financial regulations in a generation, including the creation of a government panel that would regulate financial products with an eye toward consumer protection. All of that will have to go through the Banking Committee.

Consumer advocates and backers of a regulation overhaul are deeply concerned that handing the committee to Johnson would be a death sentence for reform.

"He's got a long track record of supporting small predatory loan companies, pay-day loan companies," said one longtime consumer advocate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he would have to work with Johnson as banking chair.

In 2003 and again in 2005, Johnson intervened with federal regulators on behalf of pay-day lenders, sending a letter to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,

I'm not too optimistic about this improving matters. How can you ever foresee every potential conflict when they're all in bed with each other? Break these "too big to fail" companies up and make them smaller, that's what I say!

Senior administration officials are considering the creation of a single agency to regulate the banking industry, replacing a patchwork of agencies that failed to prevent banks from falling into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, sources said.

The agency would be a key element in the administration's sweeping overhaul of financial regulation, which officials hope to unveil in coming weeks, including the creation of a new authority to police risks to the financial system as well as a new agency to protect consumers, according to three people familiar with the matter. Most of the proposals would require legislation.

"The president is committed to signing a regulatory reform package by the end of the year, and officials at the White House and the Treasury Department are continuing work with Congress on the final phases of a proposal, but there is no final proposal in place and any announcement will not be for a couple of weeks," said White House deputy spokesman Jennifer R. Psaki.

Senior officials have reached agreement on aspects of the plan, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

They favor vesting the Federal Reserve with new powers as a systemic risk regulator, with broad responsibility for detecting threats to the financial system. The powers would include oversight of previously unregulated markets, such as the derivatives trade, and of market participants such as hedge funds.

Officials also favor the creation of a new agency to enforce laws protecting consumers of financial products such as mortgages and credit cards.

And they want to merge the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which share responsibility for protecting investors from fraud.

Other aspects of the plan remain under discussion, sources said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose details.

Among these ideas is the creation of a single agency to regulate banks. The new regulator would assume responsibility for the safety and soundness of banks, currently divided among the Fed and three other agencies: the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The OCC and the OTS would probably disappear, while the Fed and the FDIC would retain other responsibilities.

Under the current system, banks can choose their regulator. Because the OCC, OTS and FDIC are funded by fees from the banks, the regulators have an incentive to compete for business by offering more lenient oversight. The system also divides supervision of the largest financial conglomerates among multiple agencies, each with responsibility for certain subsidiaries, creating gaps in coverage that companies have exploited. Many experts say these failures of regulation contributed to the financial crisis.

Gee, ya think?

Imagine. These statements are made by one of their biggest shareholders:

May 2 (Bloomberg) -- Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Vice Chairman Charles Munger, whose company is the largest private shareholder in Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co., said banks will use their “enormous political power” to prevent changes to the industry that would benefit society.

“This is an enormously influential group of people, and 90 percent of that influence is being spent to gain powers and practices that the world would be better off without,” Munger, 85, said yesterday in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “It will be very hard to accomplish the kind of surgery that would be desirable for the wider civilization.”

Munger said policy makers should seek to impose limits on banks that are deemed “too big to fail” after financial institutions worldwide suffered more than $1 trillion in losses. The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount that approaches the value of everything produced in the country last year, to stem the recession.

“We need to remove from the investment banking and the commercial banking industries a lot of the practices and prerogatives that they have so lovingly possessed,” Munger said. “If they are too big to fail, they are too big to be allowed to be as gamey and venal as they’ve been -- and as stupid as they’ve been.”