The New Yorker ran a rather confused piece on Gary Sernovitz, a managing director at the investment firm Lime Rock Partners, on whether Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton would be more effective in reining in Wall Street. The piece assures us that Secretary Clinton has a better understanding of Wall Street and that her plan would be more effective in cracking down on the industry.
Thank you, Dean. Shared. Go Bernie.
Sernovitz' assertion that the too-big-to-fail banks are weaker today is 100% BS when you consider that in 1990 those banks controlled 10% of US banking assets, in 2008 they controlled 25% and by the end of 2015 they will control 45% of US banking assets on their ever accelerating pace to monopolize banking. Not to mention that according to the US General Accounting Office (GAO) since 2008 Congress has put US taxpayers on the hook for $26 trillion in various bailout schemes for these banks and when these banks trigger the next crash (which they will because they profit handsomely from crashes) Congress will shower even more taxpayers' money on these banks.
Wall Street and the New Yorker both know how to create profit from confusion, that is why they "ran a rather confused piece".
Confusion and dissembling are fascist hallmarks. Pushing the Overton window to the max.. Fearful and emotionally stretched people generally make self defeating decisions.
Capitalism is a game....
All games require referees.....
With all the "reforms" the referees have essentially been taken out of the game......
This is not going to end well.......
Sernovitz was no doubt hired (or on the payroll) to do what he could to set up a false equivalency between Mrs. Clinton's pro Wall St./big banks positions and those of Mr. Sanders. In other words, it's a PR whitewash intended to increase the lady's odds of winning an election that the 1% expects to be "in the bag."
In addition to bailing out too-big-to-fail banks in the next crash, Congress will also be bailing out recently merged too-big-to-fail drug and insurance companies who have jumped on the bailout gravy train, adding to their Affordable Care Act (ACA) windfall.
Being the largest private employer in a majority of US states for at least the past decade, Walmart is also too-big-to-fail, so US taxpayers' will be saddled with far more than the $26 trillion that Congress has put them on the bailkout hook for since 2008.
RT is running a program called Who is Saving Whom - working with disaster as business model - another voice and vehicle to expand understanding Disaster Capitalism
every documentation presentation helps the broadening of public conversation on this
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I think that the coming crash is why many in the government and the wealthy have dual citizenship's. So they can go somewhere else to perform their destruction and leave us in the middle class and below holding the bag.
Baker sez: "(I)t is possible in principle to regulate bank's (sic) risky practices without Glass-Steagall, as the Volcker rule is doing."
With all due respect -- huh? Is the Volcker rule actually regulating the risky practices, or merely regulating them "in principle"?
Just curious: Where did the NYT (New York Times, a newspaper) enter this story?
Dean Baker (in Beat the Press) criticized Gary Sernovitz's article in The New Yorker, a magazine.
It sounds like a good principle. Though I have a hard time devising how to implement and enforce it.
Over in the Financial Press I saw an article that banks like Goldman Sachs have 'complied' with the law, such as spinning off their proprietary desks. The article said that very likely it is meant for perpetual enforcement, meaning that in practice it will be used ex-post-facto to punish banks and bankers for losing money. Insufficient regulation before the loss to prevent the loss.
Back in 2008 I thought that the 2007-2008 financial downfall happened because the government and its regulators wanted things that inevitably meant the situation would crash.
Government wanted more people owning houses. They teamed in this 'want' with mortgage lenders who wanted to lend, and homebuilders who wanted to build homes. The government regulators were so blinded by this government desire, that they asked no questions whether borrowers could buy THAT house. *Note1. So the borrowing got top heavy and fell over, mass defaults.
I continue to think that government is blinded by what it wants and pays no heed to what is and what is being risked.
Note1: Note the qualifier 'THAT house'. No one, not even the greenie sustainable activists, sought to promote smaller more affordable homes. I recall cities that zoned and set building codes to make homes more expensive and more taxable.
Oh, whoooooops! I'll edit. Thanks.
and provide money for, hopefully, programs benefitting the people.