- Reaction score
- 8,910
- Points
- 1,160
I view DJT as an irredeemable conman that I wouldn't trust to give me last nights scores- but In this case I would actually lean to his version being more "true."
It's a lowest common denominator explanation that misrepresents the details of the actual situation via simplification- de facto vice de jure kind of thing. American banks are not technically banned, but from their perspective our regulatory regime creates an untenable competitive environment, which has resulted in them having an insignificant and inexplicably small market share for a supposedly "free trade" environment- which is kind of potato-potahtoe from their side of the fence. I don't think knowledgeable person would argue the principle of the matter, that our regulatory regime does indeed stifle competition and restrict entry. We just don't care because we like it the way it is- it serves the interest of our people.
Someone on our side trying to refute the above and position our banking industry as open and competitive by framing 113 billion in cumulative assets as being in any way meaningful is counting on audience ignorance of the scale of the banking industry to deceptively invalidate the US concerns and avoid discussing the crux of the issue- that certain of our national interests definitely do fly in the face of free trade, and that if the US pushes we may be forced to choose.
We gain nothing by meeting his lies with lies to ourselves, or by burying our heads in the sand about the nature of their grievances.
Kind of like his beef with the Euros - regulations equal non-tariff trade barriers, couched in morality.