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

[Meathead]

I didn't know so many "prominent economists" taught at community colleges.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The point is, smaller banks losing $200 billion is just as damaging as one larger bank losing $200 billion.

This topic is WAY over your head if you can't understand even the simplest of concepts. Please lie down and rest.

There's another liberal who doesn't understand accounting or banking. Shocker.

You're liberal?

Never would have guessed it.

More liberal confusion. Very surprising.

If you're confused, just say so. I mean it's obvious you are, but it's ok. We can slow it down for you and maybe explain it with pictures if that helps.

Your confusion is amusing.

 

[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?

A single hedge fund, LTCM, nearly brought down the entire financial system in 1998. No smaller banks during that time caused any serious problems for the system.

We ignored that warning.

If LTCM cost one bank $100 billion or five banks $20 billion each, what is the difference in total damage?

 

[g5000]

Big banks can make big mistakes that bring everything down. Smaller banks cannot.

I am not against big banks. In fact, I had no problem with lifting the Glass-Steagall restrictions on bank sizes. Forcing a bank to be regional makes it vulnerable to regional fluctuations. Think of a bank in a steel mill town. When steel mills went belly up, all those steel workers defaulted on their loans, which brought down small banks. Allowing a bank to be national means it is less likely to collapse.

A large bank is also able to finance the massive bond issues that make the world go round. However, this argument is rather weakened by the fact that many bond large bond issues are shared by multiple banks. That is actually a good thing.

My problem with the way the economic collapse caused by the big banks was handled is that we did not unwind those bastards. Every last zombie bank should have been broken up and the pieces sold off, just like what was done with LTCM.

The SEC and the Fed chose the winners and losers instead. They allowed some zombie banks to murder other zombie banks in broad daylight. It was not a coincidence the former Goldman Sachs employees in government allowed Goldman to be the top ax murderer with police protection as they murdered Washington Mutual.

If you rescue a failed business model and let it live, you do not allow better business models to enter the competition and succeed.

We need a big insurance pool. We need every hedge fund and financial institution to pay into that fund. And that fund should be there for the next crash, so the zombie banks can be kept on life support long enough to unwind them and sell them off.

 

[g5000]

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?

A single hedge fund, LTCM, nearly brought down the entire financial system in 1998. No smaller banks during that time caused any serious problems for the system.

We ignored that warning.

If LTCM cost one bank $100 billion or five banks $20 billion each, what is the difference in total damage?

Failed logic. There were not any other banks which failed. Only LTCM. Your idiot logic assumes those five other banks would have the same business model and the same morons running them. The fact there were other banks and hedge funds alongside LTCM at the same time, and NONE of them fucked up like LTCM shows the serious flaw in your thinking.

In fact, LTCM was bought up by the other hedge funds and banks. One of which was Bear Stearns. Bear Stearns was particularly cruel toward LTCM.

A lot of people felt some poetic justice had been served when Stearns was the first big firm to collapse in 2008. That's why no one stepped in to rescue them. That's why they were bought up for $2.00.

 

[Confounding]

OMG. A list of leftist university professors who never worked a day in their lives from a ultra lib website.

That's an impressive argument; I don't even know where to begin disagreeing.

 

[Indeependent]

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?

Links to fired CEOs?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

If they had brains, they would NOT be voting for him. That is why he won NH.

 

[Confounding]

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

If they had brains, they would NOT be voting for him. That is why he won NH.

the definition of oligarchy

How do you not see this happening? A handful of people control the vast majority of wealth and power in this country and you want to vote for people that would give them more.

 

[Contumacious]

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

If they had brains, they would NOT be voting for him. That is why he won NH.

the definition of oligarchy

How do you not see this happening? A handful of people control the vast majority of wealth and power in this country and you want to vote for people that would give them more.

LISTEN STUPID FUCK

IT WAS THE "PROGRESSIVES" - aka, THE SOCIALISTS - WHO NATIONALIZED AND PLACED BANKING AND CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF A FEW PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT OF 1913

 

[Rustic]

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:

Never listen to the old nut sack

 

[Indeependent]

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

If they had brains, they would NOT be voting for him. That is why he won NH.

the definition of oligarchy

How do you not see this happening? A handful of people control the vast majority of wealth and power in this country and you want to vote for people that would give them more.

LISTEN STUPID FUCK

IT WAS THE "PROGRESSIVES" - aka, THE SOCIALISTS - WHO NATIONALIZED AND PLACED BANKING AND CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF A FEW PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT OF 1913

Wow! UPA KASE!!! U MUHST B SMAHRT!

 

[Indeependent]

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:

Never listen to the old nut sack

And yet you know he's a nutsack.

 

[Rustic]

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:

Never listen to the old nut sack

And yet you know he's a nutsack.

Nothing he says make sense...

 

[Indeependent]

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:

Never listen to the old nut sack

And yet you know he's a nutsack.

Nothing he says make sense...

How do you know?
You said you never listened to him.
Wouldn't your criticisms be more valid and convincing if you really knew your enemy?

 

[The Great Goose]

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

If they had brains, they would NOT be voting for him. That is why he won NH.

the definition of oligarchy

How do you not see this happening? A handful of people control the vast majority of wealth and power in this country and you want to vote for people that would give them more.

LISTEN STUPID FUCK

IT WAS THE "PROGRESSIVES" - aka, THE SOCIALISTS - WHO NATIONALIZED AND PLACED BANKING AND CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF A FEW PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT OF 1913

Please stop using the word "progressives"

 

[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?

A single hedge fund, LTCM, nearly brought down the entire financial system in 1998. No smaller banks during that time caused any serious problems for the system.

We ignored that warning.

If LTCM cost one bank $100 billion or five banks $20 billion each, what is the difference in total damage?

Failed logic. There were not any other banks which failed. Only LTCM. Your idiot logic assumes those five other banks would have the same business model and the same morons running them. The fact there were other banks and hedge funds alongside LTCM at the same time, and NONE of them fucked up like LTCM shows the serious flaw in your thinking.

In fact, LTCM was bought up by the other hedge funds and banks. One of which was Bear Stearns. Bear Stearns was particularly cruel toward LTCM.

A lot of people felt some poetic justice had been served when Stearns was the first big firm to collapse in 2008. That's why no one stepped in to rescue them. That's why they were bought up for $2.00.

Failed logic.

And a failure to answer. Why?

Your idiot logic assumes those five other banks would have the same business model and the same morons running them.

No. It just assumes they all lost money.

The fact there were other banks and hedge funds alongside LTCM at the same time, and NONE of them fucked up like LTCM shows the serious flaw in your thinking.

How much did LTCM lose? Why would it be better if the same loss was split among 4 banks? Or 10?

That's why they were bought up for $2.00

They were bought for $10.

 

[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?

Links to fired CEOs?

Links to fired CEOs who waltzed into new jobs.

 

[Indeependent]

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?

Links to fired CEOs?

Links to fired CEOs who waltzed into new jobs.

My request is better because practically no CEOs or bank managers were fired for pushing junk.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Links to fired CEOs?

Links to fired CEOs who waltzed into new jobs.

My request is better because practically no CEOs or bank managers were fired for pushing junk.

Angelo Mozilo, Stan O’Neal, Ken Lewis, John Thain, Jimmy Cayne, Dick Fuld, Alvaro de Molina.