Home | About | Donate

Unlikely Critic Says Banks Still Too Big To Fail, Pose 'Nuclear' Risk to US Economy


#1


#2

This bankster has apparently remained an actual human being, not converted 100% into a corporate zombie! Props to Neel Kashkari for speaking out.

We so need a deep transformation of the political economy, which apparently will only arrive on the wings of collapse... as all words of wisdom are dutifully ignored by regulators, politicians, spokespersons, and of course, banksters.

Keep up the focus on the truth, because we never know exactly when and where major shifts will begin.


#3

Kashkari must have spent just enough time on the left coast to be deprived of kool aid (from inside the DC beltway and Wall Street) to get a reality check.

Kashkari's warning is an understatement when you consider that in 2008 the too-big-to-fail banks that controlled 25% of US bank assets now control 45% and will control half of all US banks assets by the time Obama leaves the White House next January. Since 2008 drug and insurance companies have merged to form their own too-big-to-fail companies so they can enjoy the lucrative bailout profit centers that the banks have enjoyed.

Kashkari's allegation that Dodd Frank was not enough is misleading when you consider that the too-big-to-fail banks influenced its content to the extent that it makes community banks less competitive and has enabled the above delineated growth of too-big-to-fail banks.


#4

¿Does Divide And Conquer suggest a concept - another switcheroo in the making - let a biggee vandalize the new little guys.
The "New Guy's" masked threat is still "TBTF" - simply apply rules that were penned and voted prior to potus Regan.

Print essays about Neel because they'll disappear shortly.
A carrot for the Citizens, to be replaced by more austerity.


#5

Well, one thing for sure, this won't happen under a Clinton Administration, after all, there's a reason Wall Street "loves" her. See WILLIAM D. COHAN's article in Politico, November 11, 2014


#6

Did the republican president of the Minneapolis Federal reserve just agree with Bernie


#7

This is a bunch of BS marketing/PR. How is it that in ANY economic class across the nation, one can find out how the economy failed, yetthe people 'investigating' and designing bailouts still cant seem to understand how something like this could happen. This is what happened: Wall street was doing, at the time, illegal short saleing that conssited of having a program that would see what the prices of stocks were before the prices were posted, and therefore created an illegal short saling that Obama excused publicly on Sixty Minutes in 2010. So then, 'they' (they being the ones designing these programs, whom we are not legally allowed to know do to the new corporate secrecy rules that the big pharma companies lobbied for in 2007) made a new program that did the same thing in less time, which the Obama administration OK'ed, that was presented publicly on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Funny how all this stuff came out publicly, yet people in Congress and the supposed investigators just cant seem to get it. Short saling should be illegal, even if it happens in less than one second. If you know stock prices before they are posted, you are the one doing wrong, NO EXCEPTIONS! But everyone loves Obama and his incompetence. But hey, like it was presented on mass media, he's the first black Prez, which is also a lie. He's seventh cousin to George W. Bush through his mother's side, making him the first white Prez with a dark skin color. (Go to youtube and look up Fox News Obama lineage. Those darned ole' Ancestry.com people). Good one Muricans, failing the country at every turn.


#8

Glass Stiegel is the better alternative


#9

Do you have any idea how many 7th cousins we all have? Into the hundreds of thousands. Fact is, we are all related. But don't let that stop you from seeing meaningful but meaningless connections everywhere!


#10

Timely. Just today, I added this to my reading list: "Other People's Money: The Real Business of Finance" September 22, 2015 by John Kay. I hope Kashkari continues to speak out.


#11

As young surfers we watched the outer point and called it the "Indicator."

I saw an indicator during the 2008 crash; the price of junk cars surged to $225 before collapsing to $25.

The junk car slowly climbed back to $225, before collapsing in December.

At this point junk car price is a negative number, its worse than 2008. You pay to have a junker taken away. The indicator is worse than flat.


#13

It's happening now, according to the indicator. Imagine being a scrap dealer with a flow of scrap that takes six weeks to reach China from any given US junk yard. Some of those loads have become negative value in transit. The owner will have to pay to dispose of them in China.


#14

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#19

Spot on, "negative interest" is NOT a tool they can be allowed to have. Fight!


#20

Delightful rant! Fight on!


#21

Glad you got that off your chest, Clauden. Here is what attracted me to Kay's book. A quote from the flyleaf: "In a dazzling and revelatory tour of the financial world as it has emerged from the wreckage of the 2008 crisis, Kay does not flinch in his criticism: we do need some of the things that Citigroup and Goldman Sachs do, but we do not need Citigroup and Goldman to do them. And many of the things done by Citigroup and Goldman do not need to be done at all. The finance sector needs to be reminded of its primary purpose: to manage other people’s money for the benefit of businesses and households. It is an aberration when the some of the finest mathematical and scientific minds are tasked with devising algorithms for the sole purpose of exploiting the weakness of other algorithms for computerized trading in securities. To travel further down that road leads to ruin."


#22

we don't . . . need them. there just aren't enough of us--yet--that realize it.


#23

I am still skeptical. This could easily end up being a bait and switch. His plan is due to come out by the end of year, after the presidential election but before the next president takes office. If someone is elected with an aggressive plan to break up the big banks and reinstate Glass-Steagal, I would not be surprised were a more modest, more "reasonable and pragmatic" plan to be issued from the Federal Reserve before the new president took office, undermining true reform. Having been burned, used and abused by Wall Street, I'm waiting to see what the plan is and will view it with a skeptical eye trying to see how the plan could benefit Wall Street. As the Who sing, "Don't Be Fooled Again!"


#25

Or maybe the Federal Reserve is trying to hang in there, realizing its days are numbered


#26

Agree, I trust Mr. Kashkari 0.0%. Especialy after what he's done and who he represents. Sure, the powers that be will attempt to 'get out in front' if they think change is coming, plenty of people besides this scuzzball can provide leadership, and ideas.