170 Prominent Economists Back Bernie Sanders’ Plan to Rein in Wall Street

[Confounding]

I must have missed the plans other candidates have for breaking up the banks. Could somebody enlighten me for compare and contrast purposes?

170 Prominent Economists Back Bernie Sanders' Plan to Rein in Wall Street

Financial experts, academics, and economists from across the nation are officially endorsing Bernie Sanders’ proposal to break up big banks and bring justice to Wall Street. In a speech earlier this month in the heart of New York City’s financial district, Sanders outlined his plan to reform Wall Street that included, among other things, passing a new law similar to the Glass-Steagall bill of the 1930s that would separate commercial banking from investment banking — effectively breaking up the biggest Wall Street banks into smaller institutions. Sanders also pledged to take action to cap ATM fees at $2 per use, make usurious interest fees illegal, levy a sales tax on all financial transactions on Wall Street to discourage speculative trading, and bring criminal charges against the banking executives responsible for the 2008 financial crisis. Here’s video of the full speech:

 

[Rouge Rover]

Why do the banks need to be broken up? The problem is lack of regulation. Regulate them. Bernie wants to use a howitzer to kill mosquitos.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The problem is government guarantees. Let the banks risk their own capital

 

[Confounding]

Why do the banks need to be broken up?

They need to be broken up because they are "too big to fail." A bank that is too big to fail is too big to exist. Our economy should not be at the mercy of banks that have to succeed.

 

[Rouge Rover]

Why do the banks need to be broken up?

They need to be broken up because they are "too big to fail." A bank that is too big to fail is too big to exist. Our economy should not be at the mercy of banks that are above paying for the consequences of their own bad decisions.

I don't agree with this. If the government isn't happy with the way the banks operate then regulate them. There's no reason to break them up. Let's not forget that some insurance companies were deemed too big to fail. Were they broken up? No, we reward them by making dealing with them mandatory in some cases.

 

[Confounding]

There's no reason to break them up.

There is plenty of reason to break them up. Our economy should not be at the mercy of a handful of banks whose success must be guaranteed. The banks are too big; it's time to do something about it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I must have missed the plans other candidates have for breaking up the banks. Could somebody enlighten me for compare and contrast purposes?

170 Prominent Economists Back Bernie Sanders' Plan to Rein in Wall Street

Financial experts, academics, and economists from across the nation are officially endorsing Bernie Sanders’ proposal to break up big banks and bring justice to Wall Street. In a speech earlier this month in the heart of New York City’s financial district, Sanders outlined his plan to reform Wall Street that included, among other things, passing a new law similar to the Glass-Steagall bill of the 1930s that would separate commercial banking from investment banking — effectively breaking up the biggest Wall Street banks into smaller institutions. Sanders also pledged to take action to cap ATM fees at $2 per use, make usurious interest fees illegal, levy a sales tax on all financial transactions on Wall Street to discourage speculative trading, and bring criminal charges against the banking executives responsible for the 2008 financial crisis. Here’s video of the full speech:

I must have missed the plans other candidates have for breaking up the banks

Why is a $1 trillion dollar bank worse than ten $100 billion banks?

levy a sales tax on all financial transactions on Wall Street to discourage speculative trading,

Yes! Charging your mutual fund when it buys or sells will be a great help to the markets. Huh?

and bring criminal charges against the banking executives responsible for the 2008 financial crisis.

If they charge the law breakers at Fannie and Freddie as well as the Congressmen who contributed to the crisis, I'm all for it.

 

[The Great Goose]

Wouldn't it be nice if people had the brains and balls to vote for this man!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do the banks need to be broken up?

They need to be broken up because they are "too big to fail." A bank that is too big to fail is too big to exist. Our economy should not be at the mercy of banks that are too important to pay for the consequences of their own bad decisions.

The banks lost trillions. Sounds like they paid for the consequences.

 

[Rouge Rover]

There's no reason to break them up.

There is plenty of reason to break them up. Our economy should not be at the mercy of a handful of banks whose success must be guaranteed. The banks are too big; it's time to do something about it.

No comment on the rest of my post? Alright.

 

[Confounding]

Why is a $1 trillion dollar bank worse than ten $100 billion banks?

If a smaller bank makes a stupid decision we won't be obligated to save their asses to keep the economy from falling apart.

 

[paulitician]

Ha, what a sad re-run tv show. They said the same thing about Hussein too. Meanwhile he went on to bail Wall Street out and help it make record profits. Why do so many people continue to buy into the same ole stale propaganda?

 

[easyt65]

Bernie promotes the socialist idea of the government seizing more control of business. He is advocating a bigger, more powerful, controlling government - the antithesis of what our Founding fathers intended. It all sounds great, but he is spreading the agenda of turning the nation into a Socialist country and ignoring / turning our backs farther away from the Constitution than it already is. Some people are all for that...I am not.

 

[konradv]

They need to be broken up because they are "too big to fail." A bank that is too big to fail is too big to exist. Our economy should not be at the mercy of banks that are too important to pay for the consequences of their own bad decisions.

The banks lost trillions. Sounds like they paid for the consequences.

No they didn't . Their shareholders and taxpayers did. The people making the decisions still got their golden parachutes, severance packages and new jobs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why is a $1 trillion dollar bank worse than ten $100 billion banks?

If a smaller bank makes a stupid decision we won't be obligated to save their asses to keep the economy from falling apart.

The damage would be the same, 10 banks lose $20 billion each or 1 bank loses $200 billion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They need to be broken up because they are "too big to fail." A bank that is too big to fail is too big to exist. Our economy should not be at the mercy of banks that are too important to pay for the consequences of their own bad decisions.

The banks lost trillions. Sounds like they paid for the consequences.

No they didn't . Their shareholders and taxpayers did. The people making the decisions still got their golden parachutes, severance packages and new jobs.

Yes they did. The banks lost trillions. The share price went down. Shareholders lost money.
CEOs were fired. CEOs lost on their stock and options. Which CEOs got new jobs? Link?

 

[Confounding]

The damage would be the same, 10 banks lose $20 billion each or 1 bank loses $200 billion.

Why would 10 banks lose 20 billion each if they are run separately? When a few banks control a lot more the situation is much riskier because the decisions of fewer people have a much larger impact.

 

[konradv]

The banks lost trillions. Sounds like they paid for the consequences.

No they didn't . Their shareholders and taxpayers did. The people making the decisions still got their golden parachutes, severance packages and new jobs.

Yes they did. The banks lost trillions. The share price went down. Shareholders lost money. CEOs were fired. CEOs lost on their stock and options. Which CEOs got new jobs? Link?

You think they didn't get new jobs?!?! You're right, I don't have a link. I'm just using common sense and knowledge of how the system works. Suggest you do the same.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The damage would be the same, 10 banks lose $20 billion each or 1 bank loses $200 billion.

Why would 10 banks all lose 20 billion each if they are broken up and run separately? When a few banks control a lot more you are creating a much riskier situation because the decisions of fewer people have a much larger impact.

Do you feel that all banks didn't lose money during the crisis?

 

[paulitician]

Hussein was the guy who was gonna get that mean ole Wall Street Boogeyman too. Yet he received more money from Corporate Banks than any other Candidate in history. And Wall Street went on to hit record high profits during his tenure. How'd that all work out for you Obamabot 'Occupiers?'