What he should say

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 #410,874 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!