• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie Sanders To Introduce Bill To Break Up The Big Banks

We went thru this already, pretty much what the New Deal was about (in part) which restricted and regulated predatory banking that at least in part led to the depression. Worked well several decades, grew the biggest strongest middle class that the modern world at least had ever known. But 30 years of Reaganomics are reversing that. This is what Sanders wants to address.
Exactly!

We are a consumer driven economy - not a top-down charity organization.

Hiring is stimulated by consumer demand, not corporate benevolence. How prevalent are the examples of corporations hiring employees they don't need, or keeping unnecessary employees on during economic downturns? Giving more money to the wealthy to stimulate hiring is one of the greatest fallacies fostered on the uninitiated.

If 'trickle down economics' worked, after thirty years of it we would be awash in jobs! (We're not)
 
Last edited:
That's the thing I don't get. We've had 30 years of Reaganomics and after 30 years it has been nothing but an absolute failure. We tried it, it failed, let's go back to what was working. I don't know why the American people are so beholding to feeding the wealthy top 1% as much wealth as possible in the hopes that maybe some of it will trickle down. Also here's what I don't get...

The name itself is indicative of it's failure to work. "TRICKLE DOWN". Not cascade, not waterfall, not avalanche. "Trickle down". Jeez and to think this policy has been in effect for over 30 years.
 
With all due respect, the topic is not 'Bernie Sanders', but his attempt to end the 'too big to fail free ride syndrome'. I'm willing to acknowledge that even candidates I don't like occasional have an idea that has merit.

You're point about TARP being paid-back is reasonably accurate, but those funds came out of the tax-payer's funds, which I believe I can euphemistically refer to as 'my pocket-book' without occurring too much discrepancy.

But the big-picture you're missing is free-markets cannot exist without regulation - monopoly or oligarchy are NOT free markets. Neither are bail-outs with the people's money - that my friend is corporate socialism.

And the current American dualistic economic system of 'corporate socialized losses with 'free-market profits' is exactly what Mr. Sanders is attempting to rectify!

Are we free-market? Or socialist? Which is it?

I'll weigh-in for free-markets in a well-regulated economic system.

Right now we're in a process of subsidizing losses and privatizing profits when it comes to corporations. That's the worst thing ever. You'd think conservatives and Dems both would be opposed to this system but in fact the politicos and the people like it just fine. It's really shocking.
 
Reasonable people want fair market capitalism, like free trade, free capitalism migrates towards benefitting fewer and fewer, more and more. Fair trade, fair capitalism. Both require regulation and monitoring.

Nonsense, " reasonable " people have no idea what they're taking about.

Its not " reasonable " to give a Government or a President who opposes the Free market on principle the power to be the arbiter of " fairness ".
 
I think Sanders is attempting to take some of the POWER away from these huge banking monopolies that the US gave the Treasure to. Banks as lenders are influencing which Nations the USA manipulates to survive so that they can make their bank payments to their USA banking opportunists "privatizing" National patrimonies. The USA and huge Banking CORPORATIONS colluding to control Nations. Gosh, who'd a thunk it? "Too big to fail?" Screw 'em all. Pull the plug. Make sure the Nations that owe big debts to USA Banks survive to protect those bank payments. There have been no principles in recent gov't moves by the USA, at least, not since Vietnam.

you are misusing the term "monopolies"... it doesn't apply here.

it might sound good and get the fellow travelers all wet in the britches... but it genuinely does not apply.
 
Right now we're in a process of subsidizing losses and privatizing profits when it comes to corporations. That's the worst thing ever. You'd think conservatives and Dems both would be opposed to this system but in fact the politicos and the people like it just fine. It's really shocking.
You are absolutely correct! (as I pointed out in my post re: 'socialized losses & free-market profits')

But it's far worse.

Due to big-money's control of congress (and perhaps the presidency), we are at best becoming a plutocratic oligarchy, and at worst sliding into (oligarchic) fascism!
 
you are misusing the term "monopolies"... it doesn't apply here. [...]
Perhaps not true monopolies in strict technical terms, but how can they not be monopolistic if they are 'too big to fail'?
 
Perhaps not true monopolies in strict technical terms, but how can they not be monopolistic if they are 'too big to fail'?

the very defintion of the word disqualifies it from use.

there is nothign inherently wrong or bad about " too big to fail" firms... though it would be reasonable to enact a regualtory scheme that would curb certain risk taking that could lead to a crisis.

in other words, too big to fail is fine... but ya can't allow the big boys to play with matches around gasoline.
little guys can take big risks... the big guys need to act more prudently due to thier station. ( this is almost entirely a principal-agent problem, and as such, dificult to remedy under current law.. though not impossible.)

the only tricky matter is in enforcement and accountibility... right now, we're barely surpassing an "honor system".... we need to wrap our heads around the idea that "too big to fail" does NOT mean "too big to hold acountable".
 
Bernie Sanders understands that an economy cannot function properly with all of the wealth and power concentrated at the top. He understands that when the people on the bottom are making more money it stimulates the economy. He understands that breaking up monopolies and creating competition is how you make the market healthier. He understands capitalism better than his Republican counterparts.


Lol ! An " avowed Socialist understands Capitalism " ??

Bernie Sanders doesn't understand anything but devidive leftist talking points and false narratives on disparity.

He opposes Capitalism on principle and has no CLUE of what drives a free market economy.

If he did he wouldn't be pushing these same destructive " solutions " that have led to Trillions of dollars in wealth stagnating instead of being invested in our economy.
 
In my view, the size of the banks is not that relevant. In Canada, somewhere between 80% and 90% of all banking business is controlled by the "big five" banks. What's relevant is the oversight given them and the regulations controlling them. Canada's banks and banking system is seen as among if not the most stable in the world and each easily survived and prospered through the 2007/2008 world financial crisis and were a major reason why Canada and its economy did so well during and coming out of the financial crisis.

Regulation and oversight of a country's banking system is, to me, a primary function of government and one of the prime reasons for having government.
 
That's the thing I don't get. We've had 30 years of Reaganomics and after 30 years it has been nothing but an absolute failure. We tried it, it failed, let's go back to what was working. I don't know why the American people are so beholding to feeding the wealthy top 1% as much wealth as possible in the hopes that maybe some of it will trickle down. Also here's what I don't get...

The name itself is indicative of it's failure to work. "TRICKLE DOWN". Not cascade, not waterfall, not avalanche. "Trickle down". Jeez and to think this policy has been in effect for over 30 years.

Nonsense and generic hyperbole. 30 years of " failure " ?

The lefts alternative to supply side is based on redistribution and punitive knee jerk reactions that only wind up hurting the poor and causing more disparity.

Sanders thinks you grow free market economies through threats against and demonizing the people, the investors and the Corporations that hold the wealth

He's such a moron. " Higher taxes " because its " fair " but the rich aren't the one's who wind up suffering.

The " Rich " and Corporations always have alternatives to commiting to some leftist lunatics demands. Its easier than ever for them to invest in other markets or simply for them to hold their Capital like they're CURRENTLY doing.
 
Lol ! An " avowed Socialist understands Capitalism " ??

Bernie Sanders doesn't understand anything but devidive leftist talking points and false narratives on disparity.

He opposes Capitalism on principle and has no CLUE of what drives a free market economy.

If he did he wouldn't be pushing these same destructive " solutions " that have led to Trillions of dollars in wealth stagnating instead of being invested in our economy.

All I hear from you in this thread is faint bleating about 'socialism', 'Bernie doesn't have a clue' and 'Obama sucks'. Even if the points you are making were even related to OP, you're not even substantiating them. Are you even going to attempt to discuss the actual topic at hand?

the very defintion of the word disqualifies it from use.

there is nothign inherently wrong or bad about " too big to fail" firms... though it would be reasonable to enact a regualtory scheme that would curb certain risk taking that could lead to a crisis.

in other words, too big to fail is fine... but ya can't allow the big boys to play with matches around gasoline.
little guys can take big risks... the big guys need to act more prudently due to thier station. ( this is almost entirely a principal-agent problem, and as such, dificult to remedy under current law.. though not impossible.)

the only tricky matter is in enforcement and accountibility... right now, we're barely surpassing an "honor system".... we need to wrap our heads around the idea that "too big to fail" does NOT mean "too big to hold acountable".

So our options are to either limit the size of these institutions, or implement further regulation as to what they can do (a la Glass Steagal). The problem with just holding them accountable is that we can't hold them accountable because they're too big. If we did hold them accountable, then they would take down half the economy with them, because they're too big to fail.
 
the very defintion of the word disqualifies it from use.

there is nothign inherently wrong or bad about " too big to fail" firms... though it would be reasonable to enact a regualtory scheme that would curb certain risk taking that could lead to a crisis.

in other words, too big to fail is fine... but ya can't allow the big boys to play with matches around gasoline.
little guys can take big risks... the big guys need to act more prudently due to thier station. ( this is almost entirely a principal-agent problem, and as such, dificult to remedy under current law.. though not impossible.)

the only tricky matter is in enforcement and accountibility... right now, we're barely surpassing an "honor system".... we need to wrap our heads around the idea that "too big to fail" does NOT mean "too big to hold acountable".
I think this is pretty fair, balanced, accurate reply.

I would prefer to get as much free-market multi-source multi-supplier entities involved as possible, but realize thisis difficult to implement in some industries & infrastructures - utilities come to mind.
 
All I hear from you in this thread is faint bleating about 'socialism', 'Bernie doesn't have a clue' and 'Obama sucks'. Even if the points you are making were even related to OP, you're not even substantiating them. Are you even going to attempt to discuss the actual topic at hand?

People on the right often times live in a world of absolutes. Nothing Bernie Sanders suggests could ever be a good thing because he's an evil socialist.
 
So our options are to either limit the size of these institutions, or implement further regulation as to what they can do (a la Glass Steagal). The problem with just holding them accountable is that we can't hold them accountable because they're too big. If we did hold them accountable, then they would take down half the economy with them, because they're too big to fail.

there is no legal mechanism or structure to limit thier size, nor is there a valid metric to determine at what size a firm can be broken up ( unless , of course, if they are a monopoly).
arguments pointing to a "cartel" like structure of big banks kinda fall flat when we look a the very nature of banks and how they are interconnected ( the whole industry is inherenlty interconnected, thereby makign claims of collusion to be suspect at best)

in very real terms, our only viable option is to limit thier behavior/actions.

I think the " too big to fail" means" too "big to hold accountable" notion is a myth...." holding accountable" does not mean " killing them off"... and our system of laws supports punitve actions towards corporate officers and the firms themselves alike.
we might have ot get rather creative in what those punitive actions are... but it's very doable.
 
In my view, the size of the banks is not that relevant. In Canada, somewhere between 80% and 90% of all banking business is controlled by the "big five" banks. What's relevant is the oversight given them and the regulations controlling them. Canada's banks and banking system is seen as among if not the most stable in the world and each easily survived and prospered through the 2007/2008 world financial crisis and were a major reason why Canada and its economy did so well during and coming out of the financial crisis.

Regulation and oversight of a country's banking system is, to me, a primary function of government and one of the prime reasons for having government.



What needs to be said there too is that despite heavy pressure, Canada chose to tighten regulations when the US was loosening them. A cause I believe of Preston Manning backed by David Dodge.
 
The more looney red schemes Comrade Sanders comes up with, the better. The more leftists are drawn away from Lady Cankles, the better.
 
The more looney red schemes Comrade Sanders comes up with, the better. The more leftists are drawn away from Lady Cankles, the better.

Would you mind explaining why you believe breaking up the big banks is a looney red scheme?
 
I think the " too big to fail" means" too "big to hold accountable" notion is a myth...." holding accountable" does not mean " killing them off"... and our system of laws supports punitve actions towards corporate officers and the firms themselves alike.
we might have ot get rather creative in what those punitive actions are... but it's very doable.
And we could always threaten to unleash the ultimate 'accountability punitive measure': "So, you want a socialist solution to your failures? Get your act together or we'll nationalize you"! :mrgreen:

I agree, we could control this with proper regulation - the problem is: the regulators are owned by the regulated!

That's a big problem ...
 
there is no legal mechanism or structure to limit thier size, nor is there a valid metric to determine at what size a firm can be broken up ( unless , of course, if they are a monopoly).
arguments pointing to a "cartel" like structure of big banks kinda fall flat when we look a the very nature of banks and how they are interconnected ( the whole industry is inherenlty interconnected, thereby makign claims of collusion to be suspect at best)

in very real terms, our only viable option is to limit their behavior/actions.

I think the " too big to fail" means" too "big to hold accountable" notion is a myth...." holding accountable" does not mean " killing them off"... and our system of laws supports punitve actions towards corporate officers and the firms themselves alike.
we might have ot get rather creative in what those punitive actions are... but it's very doable.

To hold someone/thing accountable for their actions is to let them take the fall when they fail. The size of these institutions prevent us from letting them do that.

I do think that you're absolutely right in that we'd have to get rather creative in what those punitive actions are. Look at Dick Fuld, Lehman Brothers was a company that we did hold accountable by letting them fail, and now he's worth just a mere $100 million and living it up in his Manhattan penthouse (poor guy).

I agree that limiting their size is a legal quagmire, but I do think it has an advantage over limiting behaviour in that it is a far more certain bet in terms of preventing a similar crash happening. There's still no consensus as to whether Glass Steagall would have helped prevent 07/08, nevermind other newer, untested regulations.
 
Banks that are too big to fail are to big to exist. I support the principal behind his proposal.
 
I agree that limiting their size is a legal quagmire, but I do think it has an advantage over limiting behaviour in that it is a far more certain bet in terms of preventing a similar crash happening.
I agree, and one legal entity that might be appropriate would be the anti-trust laws.
 
To hold someone/thing accountable for their actions is to let them take the fall when they fail. The size of these institutions prevent us from letting them do that.
it doesn't neccessarily mean lettign them fall, though that is an option..... another option might be bailing them out with certain terms to be guarateed ( which we didn't do in this last fiasco)
there are lots of firms that would cause great pain to our economy if we allowed them to fail, but no one is callign to break up GM or Ford..or GE... or any of the big firms..... targeting banks is simply populist claptrap.

I do think that you're absolutely right in that we'd have to get rather creative in what those punitive actions are. Look at Dick Fuld, Lehman Brothers was a company that we did hold accountable by letting them fail, and now he's worth just a mere $100 million and living it up in his Manhattan penthouse (poor guy).
the aim isn't to kill them off or drive them into poverty.. it's to change the behavior....
if that dude was a billionaire before, leaving him with a 100 million is probably still a good punishment.... banishing him from his tradecraft would be a nice addition, though.

I agree that limiting their size is a legal quagmire, but I do think it has an advantage over limiting behaviour in that it is a far more certain bet in terms of preventing a similar crash happening. There's still no consensus as to whether Glass Steagall would have helped prevent 07/08, nevermind other newer, untested regulations.
I tink it would simply mean, in the event of a crisis, that we would have wider and depper problems to address... you have to consider that the entire indutry is incestuous by nature...big banks, small banks, medium banks... they all live and die by each others swords.
... and then there is the fact that we would end up with far more firms requiring far more resources to adequately if we split them up.
I don't think we would decrease any risks by splitting them up...I think the root problems would get worse.

it's going to take some very smart folks to solve these problems... ideologues shouldn't apply or even pretend to think they have the answers to these very complex issues...even if those "solutions" sound good to the uninformed populace.
for my money, the solutions are going to come from the banks themselves... they have a vested interests in solving principal-agent problems, and they have the people whom are smart enough to do so....teh federal government, and hte state government, just have ot provide " incentives" for them to do so... incentives like " solve it or spend a ton of time in club fed":lol:
 
Banks that are too big to fail are to big to exist. I support the principal behind his proposal.
I agree.

One of the hallmarks of free-market capitalism is the weak & inefficient fail.

Any less, and we no longer have free markets!
 
Back
Top Bottom