It was Bill Clinton who abolished Glass Steagall in 1999, with massive Republican support, and Hillary is unlikely to concede how stupid and wrong that was. Investment banking is not only too big to fail while it has a call on public funds to bail it out in a disaster but also will inevitably fail (again) because of the inherent risks. It is essential to restore Glass Steagall and remove investment banking from the rest, refusing to give public guarantees that distort the market and incite risk taking.
There are also some financial institutions so big that WHEN one of them fails, it will have a massive systemic impact. It is crazy to allow them to persist because the economic / financial system is inherently designed to fail while they remain in operation. Regulation will not remove or even reduce the threat which everyone agrees they represent, because they are too big to manage and too big to regulate.
It is time for voters to understand that they cannot place their hopes in a system that operates on greed without restraint. We are faced with crazy people and insane policies and we need people like Saunders, free of corrupt influence, having the simple nerve to stand up to the corporations and demand democratic accountability and the priority of democracy over wealth.
The issue is not will he win but is he right. Of course he is.
Given a choice between that and the wit and wisdom of Trump and Palin, let's see what the Americans choose. He will introduce specific and seriously well considered changes to the regulation of the financial sector - they will make America great they will make America great they will make America great again again again (like when?). What a tough one for the voters.
Originally posted by normbenign Most plans to limit free markets produce counter productive and counter intuitive results.
this is counter intuitive to a free market: guaranteeing investment deposits with tax payer's money obviously leads to them taking risks knowing they are not going to suffer the consequences.
what bank ceo will NOT take ludicrous (maybe even illegal) risks knowing
1: he won't go to jail
2: he won't suffer any financial consequence aside from the golden parachute he is getting
3. the company won't suffer any financial consequences.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi As a side note, no republican has any plan on dealing with Wall Street whatsoever.
No republican ever has a plan. They only have anti-plans. The Republican mantra is don't do anything because anything you do will be bad. If you see the government doing anything, stop them at all cost.
This is partly, I believe, a response to the 'negative news' culture. If all news is negative you start to think that all action is negative. The news never talks about what people have done right, or plans that worked so you start to think like normbenign who believes no plan can ever work.
My advice to everyone is to watch Chinese News for a month.