You're not comparing their actual policy proposals and their plans to get there bwaHAHAHAHAHA

NY Daily News interview from April 1:

Daily News: And then, you further said that you expect to break them up within the first year of your administration. What authority do you have to do that? And how would that work? How would you break up JPMorgan Chase?

Sanders: Well, by the way, the idea of breaking up these banks is not an original idea. It's an idea that some conservatives have also agreed to.

You've got head of, I think it's, the Kansas City Fed, some pretty conservative guys, who understands. Let's talk about the merit of the issue, and then talk about how we get there.

Right now, what you have are two factors. We bailed out Wall Street because the banks are too big to fail, correct? It turns out, that three out of the four largest banks are bigger today than they were when we bailed them out, when they were too-big-to-fail. That's number one.

Number two, if you look at the six largest financial institutions of this country, their assets somewhere around $10 trillion. That is equivalent to 58% of the GDP of America. They issue two-thirds of the credit cards in this country, and about one-third of the mortgages. That is a lot of power.

And I think that if somebody, like if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, he would look at that. Forgetting even the risk element, the bailout element, and just look at the kind of financial power that these guys have, would say that is too much power.

Daily News: Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?

Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?

Sanders: Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.

Daily News: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, "Now you must do X, Y and Z?"

Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.

Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?

Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do.

Daily News: So if you look forward, a year, maybe two years, right now you have...JPMorgan has 241,000 employees. About 20,000 of them in New York. $192 billion in net assets. What happens? What do you foresee? What is JPMorgan in year two of...

Sanders: What I foresee is a stronger national economy. And, in fact, a stronger economy in New York State, as well. What I foresee is a financial system which actually makes affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses. Does not live as an island onto themselves concerned about their own profits. And, in fact, creating incredibly complicated financial tools, which have led us into the worst economic recession in the modern history of the United States.

Daily News: I get that point. I'm just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?

Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.

Daily News: No. But you'd be breaking it up.

Sanders: That's right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision. All I am saying is that I do not want to see this country be in a position where it was in 2008, where we have to bail them out. And, in addition, I oppose that kind of concentration of ownership entirely.

You're asking a question, which is a fair question. But let me just take your question and take it to another issue. Alright? It would be fair for you to say, "Well, Bernie, you got on there that you are strongly concerned about climate change and that we have to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel. What happens to the people in the fossil fuel industry?"

That's a fair question. But the other part of that is if we do not address that issue the planet we’re gonna leave your kids and your grandchildren may not be a particularly healthy or habitable one. So I can't say, if you're saying that we’re going to break up the banks, will it have a negative consequence on some people? I suspect that it will. Will it have a positive impact on the economy in general? Yes, I think it will.

Daily News: Well, it does depend on how you do it, I believe. And, I'm a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order...

Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator.

Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I'm not quite...

Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up.

Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?

Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.

Bernie wants to Break Up The Big Banks™. But he can't articulate how that would be done. Even though he's been running on breaking up the big banks since, what, 2009 or earlier?

(sigh)

Yeah, it's all about his policy proposals and how he would get things done. Yup.

Cheers,
Scott.

Of course he should have had a coherent answer. Maybe something along those lines. But I don't think the various regulatory agencies have the power to fine a bank for being too big. New legislation would almost certainly be required. And given how hard it was to get even Dodd-Frank passed, what are the chances of that happening anytime soon?

Ok, he could say, we'll I know that passing new legislation is hard, so I'd have the Fed do it.

The Fed has a hard enough time keeping to its explicit mandate of interest rate policies for stable prices and maximum employment. The Governors are picked by the banks. They're going to be hard on the banksters without being explicitly told what and how? It's hard to see...

That's the trouble with Bernie's proposals. They're great sound bites and they sound so easy and so obviously correct, but Step 2 is almost always missing.

Yes, he was absolutely correct that the government isn't going to tell Citi and Chase how to cut where to end up being smaller. But we have a mechanism in place already that is encouraging them to get smaller - they have extra-oversight and they have to carry extra capital if they're "systemtically important" (SIFI). And banks are actually (slowly) using that. Bernie could have said he'd strengthen that mechanism under Dodd-Frank. But Bernie think's it's not pure enough, or something. He's more interested in rhetorical points than actually getting the problems addressed.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #410,867 by boxley 6/8/16 12:28:22 PM 6/8/16 12:28:22 PM Reply	You're not comparing their actual policy proposals and their plans to get there bwaHAHAHAHAHA Since I am firmly out of the coming dog fight I will pop some corn, pull up a chair and cheer the ensuing (rhetorical) bloodshed. May the best crooked liar win. always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #410,868 by Another Scott 6/8/16 12:31:45 PM 6/8/16 12:38:42 PM Reply	(sigh) - edited. NY Daily News interview from April 1: Daily News: And then, you further said that you expect to break them up within the first year of your administration. What authority do you have to do that? And how would that work? How would you break up JPMorgan Chase? Sanders: Well, by the way, the idea of breaking up these banks is not an original idea. It's an idea that some conservatives have also agreed to. You've got head of, I think it's, the Kansas City Fed, some pretty conservative guys, who understands. Let's talk about the merit of the issue, and then talk about how we get there. Right now, what you have are two factors. We bailed out Wall Street because the banks are too big to fail, correct? It turns out, that three out of the four largest banks are bigger today than they were when we bailed them out, when they were too-big-to-fail. That's number one. Number two, if you look at the six largest financial institutions of this country, their assets somewhere around $10 trillion. That is equivalent to 58% of the GDP of America. They issue two-thirds of the credit cards in this country, and about one-third of the mortgages. That is a lot of power. And I think that if somebody, like if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, he would look at that. Forgetting even the risk element, the bailout element, and just look at the kind of financial power that these guys have, would say that is too much power. Daily News: Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point. How do you go about doing it? Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail. Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority? Sanders: Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it. Daily News: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, "Now you must do X, Y and Z?" Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination. Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do? Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do. Daily News: So if you look forward, a year, maybe two years, right now you have...JPMorgan has 241,000 employees. About 20,000 of them in New York. $192 billion in net assets. What happens? What do you foresee? What is JPMorgan in year two of... Sanders: What I foresee is a stronger national economy. And, in fact, a stronger economy in New York State, as well. What I foresee is a financial system which actually makes affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses. Does not live as an island onto themselves concerned about their own profits. And, in fact, creating incredibly complicated financial tools, which have led us into the worst economic recession in the modern history of the United States. Daily News: I get that point. I'm just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go? Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank. Daily News: No. But you'd be breaking it up. Sanders: That's right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision. All I am saying is that I do not want to see this country be in a position where it was in 2008, where we have to bail them out. And, in addition, I oppose that kind of concentration of ownership entirely. You're asking a question, which is a fair question. But let me just take your question and take it to another issue. Alright? It would be fair for you to say, "Well, Bernie, you got on there that you are strongly concerned about climate change and that we have to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel. What happens to the people in the fossil fuel industry?" That's a fair question. But the other part of that is if we do not address that issue the planet we’re gonna leave your kids and your grandchildren may not be a particularly healthy or habitable one. So I can't say, if you're saying that we’re going to break up the banks, will it have a negative consequence on some people? I suspect that it will. Will it have a positive impact on the economy in general? Yes, I think it will. Daily News: Well, it does depend on how you do it, I believe. And, I'm a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order... Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator. Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I'm not quite... Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up. Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program? Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that. Bernie wants to Break Up The Big Banks™. But he can't articulate how that would be done. Even though he's been running on breaking up the big banks since, what, 2009 or earlier? (sigh) Yeah, it's all about his policy proposals and how he would get things done. Yup. Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott June 8, 2016, 12:37:52 PM EDT Edited by Another Scott June 8, 2016, 12:38:42 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #410,870 by rcareaga 6/8/16 12:35:45 PM 6/8/16 12:35:45 PM Reply	Re: (sigh) mmoffitt's wounded idealism, even when it involves him in baring his fangs, is a little easier to take than boxley's incessant trollish ball-licking. cordially,
Post #410,874 by drook 6/8/16 3:14:16 PM 6/8/16 3:14:16 PM Reply	What he should say "It's not up to me how they are broken up. What we need is a standard defining how much of the economy one institution is allowed to control. If in any quarterly SEC filings a corporation is found to exceed that amount, then they have until the end of the next quarter to divest whatever assets they need to drop below. If they fail to achieve that mandate, then their fine will be 110% of the amount by which they exceed the cap for the second consecutive quarter." -- Drew
Post #410,875 by Another Scott 6/8/16 3:28:44 PM 6/8/16 3:28:44 PM Reply	Yeah, but... Of course he should have had a coherent answer. Maybe something along those lines. But I don't think the various regulatory agencies have the power to fine a bank for being too big. New legislation would almost certainly be required. And given how hard it was to get even Dodd-Frank passed, what are the chances of that happening anytime soon? Ok, he could say, we'll I know that passing new legislation is hard, so I'd have the Fed do it. The Fed has a hard enough time keeping to its explicit mandate of interest rate policies for stable prices and maximum employment. The Governors are picked by the banks. They're going to be hard on the banksters without being explicitly told what and how? It's hard to see... That's the trouble with Bernie's proposals. They're great sound bites and they sound so easy and so obviously correct, but Step 2 is almost always missing. Yes, he was absolutely correct that the government isn't going to tell Citi and Chase how to cut where to end up being smaller. But we have a mechanism in place already that is encouraging them to get smaller - they have extra-oversight and they have to carry extra capital if they're "systemtically important" (SIFI). And banks are actually (slowly) using that. Bernie could have said he'd strengthen that mechanism under Dodd-Frank. But Bernie think's it's not pure enough, or something. He's more interested in rhetorical points than actually getting the problems addressed. Cheers, Scott.
Post #410,882 by mmoffitt 6/8/16 5:11:48 PM 6/8/16 5:11:48 PM Reply	Please enjoy four more years of Wall Street hegemony.
Post #410,884 by Another Scott 6/8/16 5:14:32 PM 6/8/16 5:14:32 PM Reply	rofl.

Welcome to IWETHEY!