SANDERS 2016

--ski--Do you either a) have no understanding of the underlying context of what he’s talking about or b) expect nobody to have any understanding the context and hoping to pass that off?

That’s 1998. They’re talking about the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management. In short, LTCM were highly levered and focused on arbitrage and delta hedging. In ’98 Russia defaulted on its debt. As we know in times of crisis all asset classes become correlated. So there was capital movement to safer securities which increased the price of assets LTCM were short and depressed the illiquid assets they were long on.

The GFC is completely unrelated to this. Again, this is 1998. Six years before Basel II framework was developed. This is the definition of stopped clock being right twice a day.
Praise Bernie where it’s due, but don’t make up nonsense.

What was the causes of the GFC again? Sorry I forget sometimes. Surely it wasn't wallstreet gambling billions... INB4 10 page discussion on the GFC because everyone knows there's a thousand little details that caused the GFC

S.J.WWhat was the causes of the GFC again? Sorry I forget sometimes. Surely it wasn't wallstreet gambling billions... INB4 10 page discussion on the GFC because everyone knows there's a thousand little details that caused the GFC

Are you actually going to argue any of the points in my post or just try and dismiss it outright?

--ski--Are you actually going to argue any of the points in my post or just try and dismiss it outright?

So wallstreet gambling millions wasn't the cause of the GFC? And Bernie wasn't talking about Wallstreet gambling billions???

Who lies the most?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html?smid=fb-share

onenerdykidWho lies the most?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html?smid=fb-share

aha ha

You're still doing it. Stop asking loaded questions. I'll happily engage in reasonable discourse with you if you're able to look at something objectively. But I won't argue with ignorance.

S.J.WSo wallstreet gambling millions wasn't the cause of the GFC? And Bernie wasn't talking about Wallstreet gambling billions???

You're still doing it. Stop asking loaded questions. I'll happily engage in reasonable discourse with you if you're able to look at something objectively. But I won't argue with ignorance.

Sanders: Iowa, NH wins could lead to one of "greatest political upsets"
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, on Monday said if he were to win both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary early next year, suggested he has a real shot at winning the Democratic nomination for president.

"If we can win in Iowa, if we can win in New Hampshire, I think we're on our way to a national victory and one of the great political upsets in the modern history of America," Sanders said on "CBS This Morning."

"I think we have a shot to win in Iowa," said Sanders, who said he'll be spending a lot of time there and in New Hampshire over the next month or so.

A CBS News Battleground tracker poll released Sunday found Hillary Clinton is leading in Iowa, but Sanders is leading Clinton in New Hampshire by 14 percentage points.

Sanders again addressed his campaign's breach of voter data that led to the firing of its data director last week and the suspension of two others.

"What we're asking for now is a thorough investigation with the DNC," Sanders said on CBS. "We certainly want to get to the bottom of this."

At the same time, he again reiterated that it was "totally inappropriate" for the Democratic National Committee to cut off his campaign's access to the voter data.

Donald Trump, meanwhile, on Monday morning tweeted that Hillary Clinton should apologize for claiming that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is using footage of him and his remarks about Muslims to recruit terrorists. But fact-checkers have found no such videos.

"I fear that Donald Trump is doing a great disservice to our country, internationally, fanning hatred at the United States," Sanders said on CBS, adding that Trump is a "pathological liar" for repeating claims that thousands of Muslims celebrated in New Jersey right after 9/11.

Asked if Clinton should apologize to Trump, Sanders said, "I'll let Hillary Clinton deal with that."

"I think Donald Trump deserve to apologize to the American people," he said.

https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/802546/Gun-confiscation-during-Hurricane-Katrina--Part-II know this has nothing to do with Sanders, but this is disgraceful.

There's probably not a single candidate in the 2016 presidential race that speaks out against money in politics more than Bernie Sanders.
But that's not stopping the Vermont Senator from breaking a few fundraising records.​

During the Democratic debate Saturday night, Sanders' campaign announced it had broken the record for off-year individual donations in a presidential campaign.

MANCHESTER, NH - DECEMBER 19: Democratic president candidate Bernie Sanders takes the stage at the democratic debate at Saint Anselm College December 19, 2015 in Manchester, New Hampshire. This is the third Democratic debate featuring Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley. (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

The previous off-year record was held by Barack Obama, who received donations from 2.2 million individuals in 2011.

The news comes just one day after Sanders raised $1 million online playing up a recent conflict with the Democratic National Committee. The DNC restricted Sanders' access to its voter data last week after several Sanders' employees exploited a glitch in the party's database.

WALL STREET is still out of control. Seven years ago, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department bailed out the largest financial institutions in this country because they were considered too big to fail. But almost every one is bigger today than it was before the bailout. If any were to fail again, taxpayers could be on the hook for another bailout, perhaps a larger one this time.
To rein in Wall Street, we should begin by reforming the Federal Reserve, which oversees financial institutions and which uses monetary policy to maintain price stability and full employment. Unfortunately, an institution that was created to serve all Americans has been hijacked by the very bankers it regulates.

The recent decision by the Fed to raise interest rates is the latest example of the rigged economic system. Big bankers and their supporters in Congress have been telling us for years that runaway inflation is just around the corner. They have been dead wrong each time. Raising interest rates now is a disaster for small business owners who need loans to hire more workers and Americans who need more jobs and higher wages. As a rule, the Fed should not raise interest rates until unemployment is lower than 4 percent. Raising rates must be done only as a last resort — not to fight phantom inflation.

What went wrong at the Fed? The chief executives of some of the largest banks in America are allowed to serve on its boards. During the Wall Street crisis of 2007, Jamie Dimon, the chief executive and chairman of JPMorgan Chase, served on the New York Fed's board of directors while his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Next year, four of the 12 presidents at the regional Federal Reserve Banks will be former executives from one firm: Goldman Sachs.

These are clear conflicts of interest, the kind that would not be allowed at other agencies. We would not tolerate the head of Exxon Mobil running the Environmental Protection Agency. We don't allow the Federal Communications Commission to be dominated by Verizon executives. And we should not allow big bank executives to serve on the boards of the main agency in charge of regulating financial institutions.

If I were elected president, the foxes would no longer guard the henhouse. To ensure the safety and soundness of our banking system, we need to fundamentally restructure the Fed's governance system to eliminate conflicts of interest. Board members should be nominated by the president and chosen by the Senate. Banking industry executives must no longer be allowed to serve on the Fed's boards and to handpick its members and staff. Board positions should instead include representatives from all walks of life — including labor, consumers, homeowners, urban residents, farmers and small businesses.

The Fed must also make sure that financial institutions are investing in the productive economy by providing affordable loans to small businesses and consumers that create good jobs. How? First, we should prohibit commercial banks from gambling with the bank deposits of the American people. Second, the Fed must stop providing incentives for banks to keep money out of the economy. Since 2008, the Fed has been paying financial institutions interest on excess reserves parked at the central bank — reserves that have grown to an unprecedented $2.4 trillion. That is insane. Instead of paying banks interest on these reserves, the Fed should charge them a fee that would be used to provide direct loans to small businesses.

Third, as a condition of receiving financial assistance from the Fed, large banks must commit to increasing lending to creditworthy small businesses and consumers, reducing credit card interest rates and fees, and providing help to underwater and struggling homeowners.
We also need transparency. Too much of the Fed's business is conducted in secret, known only to the bankers on its various boards and committees. Full and unredacted transcripts of the Federal Open Market Committee must be released to the public within six months, not five years, which is the custom now. If we had made this reform in 2004, the American people would have learned about the housing bubble well in advance of the financial crisis.

In 2010, I inserted an amendment in Dodd-Frank to audit the emergency lending by the Fed during the financial crisis. We need to go further and require the Government Accountability Office to conduct a full and independent audit of the Fed each and every year.

Financial reforms must not stop with the central bank. We must reinstate Glass-Steagall and break up the too-big-to-fail financial institutions that threaten our economy. But we need to start with fundamental change. The sad reality is that the Federal Reserve doesn't regulate Wall Street; Wall Street regulates the Fed. It's time to make banking work for the productive economy and for all Americans, not just a handful of wealthy speculators. And it begins by making the Federal Reserve a more democratic institution, one that is responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans rather than the billionaires on Wall Street.

Oh Bernie...your lack of understanding here is shining bright. While the young contingent of your voting population may love this, I imagine more than 90% of them have little to no understanding of how or why the Fed is set up the way it is.

Does it need to be audited? Perhaps. Does it need more transparency? Certainly. But to remove those "corrupt" bankers from the board? Insanity. They are the ones controlling the majority of America's cash, they certainly need to have input on how the Federal Reserve acts.

Representatives for the common man? Noble, but stupid. The farmer's representative, the laborers's representative, where will they come from? Will they understand economics and finance? If they don't then I sure as hell do not want them on that board. Chances are, if they do, they spent time working for a commodities desk in a big bank that you abhor.

And do not introduce politics to the Fed, it is a recipe for disaster.

You are starting to sound like Ron Paul with this.

.MASSHOLE.Oh Bernie...your lack of understanding here is shining bright. While the young contingent of your voting population may love this, I imagine more than 90% of them have little to no understanding of how or why the Fed is set up the way it is.

Does it need to be audited? Perhaps. Does it need more transparency? Certainly. But to remove those "corrupt" bankers from the board? Insanity. They are the ones controlling the majority of America's cash, they certainly need to have input on how the Federal Reserve acts.

Representatives for the common man? Noble, but stupid. The farmer's representative, the laborers's representative, where will they come from? Will they understand economics and finance? If they don't then I sure as hell do not want them on that board. Chances are, if they do, they spent time working for a commodities desk in a big bank that you abhor.

And do not introduce politics to the Fed, it is a recipe for disaster.

You are starting to sound like Ron Paul with this.

Wow. That was extremely painful to read.

.MASSHOLE.And do not introduce politics to the Fed, it is a recipe for disaster.

Da fuq does this even mean?

???????




???

HI Fed! My name is Politics, how are you today?



Fed!!!!!!!!!!!!! Said politics as the herd began to trample him.

Merry Christmas.

PCPRINCIPALDa fuq does this even mean?

???????




???

HI Fed! My name is Politics, how are you today?



Fed!!!!!!!!!!!!! Said politics as the herd began to trample him.

Merry Christmas.

"Board members should be nominated by the president and chosen by the Senate."

YIKES. Absolutely YIKES.

That is what I mean.

.MASSHOLE.Oh Bernie...your lack of understanding here is shining bright. While the young contingent of your voting population may love this, I imagine more than 90% of them have little to no understanding of how or why the Fed is set up the way it is.

Does it need to be audited? Perhaps. Does it need more transparency? Certainly. But to remove those "corrupt" bankers from the board? Insanity. They are the ones controlling the majority of America's cash, they certainly need to have input on how the Federal Reserve acts.

Representatives for the common man? Noble, but stupid. The farmer's representative, the laborers's representative, where will they come from? Will they understand economics and finance? If they don't then I sure as hell do not want them on that board. Chances are, if they do, they spent time working for a commodities desk in a big bank that you abhor.

And do not introduce politics to the Fed, it is a recipe for disaster.

You are starting to sound like Ron Paul with this.

I had to come back and make another post because I never actually reaslised how much of an idiot Sanders is in finance/economic related matters.

He stated he wants to stop commercial banks gambling deposits. Has he not read Dodd-Frank and seen the Volcker rule? We have this already. Has he seen what banks are doing at their prop desks?

He also states he wants banks to stop holding funds out of the economy. They're holding funds because Dodd-Frank, the Act which already achieves one his objectives, require banks to hold capital reserves.

He also wants to reinstate Glass-Steagall. How redundant is that. There is Frank-Dodd, specifically the Volcker rule, and Basel III with their capital adequacy measures. Glass-Steagall won't break up the banks, it will make them bigger. More regulation, means more costs and overhead which leads to consolidation among banks. We've seen it happen. Aren't we meant to learn from history?

I'm not even going to comment on his remarks about eliminating central banking independence and the Fed normalizing rates. That's beyond stupid.

Though I do agree with him about transparentcy.

--ski--I had to come back and make another post because I never actually reaslised how much of an idiot Sanders is in finance/economic related matters.

Though I do agree with him about transparentcy.

He just has an uninformed sense of how it all works.


1. He seems to think that the Fed is responsible for investigating any sort of fraud or corruption in the industry. That fun bit is left up to the SEC, not the Federal Reserve.

2. The Fed Board of Governors is already "controlled" by the politicians as the President appoints the Chairman and Vice Chairman after which the Senate confirms them. They're some of the few responsible for banking actions and regulations.

3. Raising interest rates is good for many, many people, not just the elite. Those CDs and bonds that Grandpa Pat and Grandma Sally have are now worth more and their retirement just became a little easier.

4.That housing bubble was in part due to low interest rates.

4. And my FAVORITE part of all, is he wants banks to act safely yet does not want them to hold the reserves that THEY ARE NOW LEGALLY REQUIRED TO. HOLY SHIT PLEASE BERNIE.


And don't forget, that amendment he advocated for he also shot down when it came to vote. Little hypocrisy there.

Also, the FCC is headed by a former Comcast Exec, isn't that a conflict of interest? The tough truth is that corporate heads often achieve their positions because of their natural intellect and ability to understand the industry. It is very tough to find someone who would be willing to take on a governmental role and salary when they could be making x100 times more elsewhere.

.MASSHOLE.He just has an uninformed sense of how it all works.

3. Raising interest rates is good for many, many people, not just the elite. Those CDs and bonds that Grandpa Pat and Grandma Sally have are now worth more and their retirement just became a little easier.

4.That housing bubble was in part due to low interest rates.

4. And my FAVORITE part of all, is he wants banks to act safely yet does not want them to hold the reserves that THEY ARE NOW LEGALLY REQUIRED TO. HOLY SHIT PLEASE BERNIE..

He has absolutely no understanding of how it works. Does he not have an adviser for these matters? This is really simple stuff that he's contradicting himself on. No capital reserves, low rates, helping home owners, the Fed somehow directing investment into certain areas(again demonstrating he has no understanding of its role). What a fantastic opportunity to create uncontrollable asset bubbles.

Personally, I now want Sanders to become president and implement these reforms. It'll drive so much work out of America and into my hands here in London.

I'm not surprised that both of you are pretentious dipshits who get off on jargon.

"What went wrong at the Fed? The chief executives of some of the largest banks in America are allowed to serve on its boards. During the Wall Street crisis of 2007, Jamie Dimon, the chief executive and chairman of JPMorgan Chase, served on the New York Fed's board of directors while his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Next year, four of the 12 presidents at the regional Federal Reserve Banks will be former executives from one firm: Goldman Sachs.
These are clear conflicts of interest, the kind that would not be allowed at other agencies. We would not tolerate the head of Exxon Mobil running the Environmental Protection Agency. We don't allow the Federal Communications Commission to be dominated by Verizon executives. And we should not allow big bank executives to serve on the boards of the main agency in charge of regulating financial institutions.

The Fed must also make sure that financial institutions are investing in the productive economy by providing affordable loans to small businesses and consumers that create good jobs. How? First, we should prohibit commercial banks from gambling with the bank deposits of the American people. Second, the Fed must stop providing incentives for banks to keep money out of the economy. Since 2008, the Fed has been paying financial institutions interest on excess reserves parked at the central bank — reserves that have grown to an unprecedented $2.4 trillion. That is insane. Instead of paying banks interest on these reserves, the Fed should charge them a fee that would be used to provide direct loans to small businesses.
Third, as a condition of receiving financial assistance from the Fed, large banks must commit to increasing lending to creditworthy small businesses and consumers, reducing credit card interest rates and fees, and providing help to underwater and struggling homeowners.

We also need transparency. Too much of the Fed's business is conducted in secret, known only to the bankers on its various boards and committees. Full and unredacted transcripts of the Federal Open Market Committee must be released to the public within six months, not five years, which is the custom now. If we had made this reform in 2004, the American people would have learned about the housing bubble well in advance of the financial crisis.

In 2010, I inserted an amendment in Dodd-Frank to audit the emergency lending by the Fed during the financial crisis. We need to go further and require the Government Accountability Office to conduct a full and independent audit of the Fed each and every year.

Financial reforms must not stop with the central bank. We must reinstate Glass-Steagall and break up the too-big-to-fail financial institutions that threaten our economy. But we need to start with fundamental change. The sad reality is that the Federal Reserve doesn't regulate Wall Street; Wall Street regulates the Fed. It's time to make banking work for the productive economy and for all Americans, not just a handful of wealthy speculators. And it begins by making the Federal Reserve a more democratic institution, one that is responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans rather than the billionaires on Wall Street.

PCPRINCIPALI'm not surprised that both of you are pretentious dipshits who get off on jargon.

You realize that is what we are discussing? His statements about the Federal Reserve are uninformed and quite frankly wrong in many aspects.

.MASSHOLE.You realize that is what we are discussing? His statements about the Federal Reserve are uninformed and quite frankly wrong in many aspects.

yeah well who are you and what makes you qualified to make those statements?

.MASSHOLE.You realize that is what we are discussing? His statements about the Federal Reserve are uninformed and quite frankly wrong in many aspects.

yeah well who are you and what makes you qualified to make those statements?

Banks want FDIC to protect themselves from losses incurred by making bad or risky investments. We, the taxpayers, will pay for their stupidity and that's how the banks want it. The banks are holding the economy hostage to their success because we will be forced to cover their losses, hence they are "to big to be allowed to fail". A large bank's failure could literally bankrupt the Federal Treasury.
That's probably why Hillary doesn't support Glass-Steagal's reinstatement. Her paymasters on Wall Street don't want it and she wants their money. That's also why no Republicans support reinstatement of Glass-Steagal either. They are all puppets of Wall Street, begging for money to run their campaigns.

The combination of Citizen's United and Repeal of Glass-Steagal have synergistically caused an existential threat to the United States. MONEY RULES!

PCPRINCIPALyeah well who are you and what makes you qualified to make those statements?

Someone who studied economics and is capable of actually reading literature about it.

Lets start with his statement that the US Government BAILED OUT numerous banks. Bailed out is a bad term, they were given substantial loans under the TARP program because they were illiquid, not insolvent.

He said he wants to stop banks gambling with deposits. They are already not allowed to because of the Volcker Rule.

He wants banks to stop holding excess reserves. Banks are required to hold a pre-set minimum of reserves because of the Dodd Frank Act. Can't have it both ways. Additionally, by making banks PAY to hold excess reserves he is basically telling them not to be liquid.

If the Fed started charging banks a fee for holding money, how is this any different than higher interest rates, which Bernie said are bad? It's not, it's the exact same thing, just with a different label. So now we're into full-blown contradictions.

He says unemployment should be below 4% before dealing with inflation. Did he manage to figure out the NAIRU? PhD's haven't been able to do that, they only make estimates that are EXTREMELY complicated.

He wants the President and Senate to have a say in who gets appointed to the Federal Reserve. Beyond stupid for reasons you should be able to figure out on your own.



Finally, a little bit of hypocrisy here. He says the Head of the FCC shouldn't be a former head of Verizon, yet, the head is a former head of Comcast. WHOOPS

.MASSHOLE.Someone who studied economics and is capable of actually reading literature about it. So you are nobody, like me.


He said he wants to stop banks gambling with deposits. They are already not allowed to because of the Volcker Rule. Dont be so naive

How much gambling will Volcker Rule actually stop?

Under the Volcker Rule, banks will still be allowed to hedge their risk. JPMorgan, as a core business, lends billions of dollars to big corporations. If these corporations start defaulting on their debts, JPMorgan is in trouble. The bank, accordingly, hedged against this risk You can see why regulators wouldn't want to infringe on hedging by banks. But you could also see how a clever bank could use hedging exceptions as a loophole through which to engage in the same profit-seeking proprietary trading the Volcker Rule intends to stop.

He wants the President and Senate to have a say in who gets appointed to the Federal Reserve. Beyond stupid for reasons you should be able to figure out on your own. Who's stupid?

Board of Governors
The Board of Governors, located in Washington, D.C., provides the leadership for the System.
The Board of Governors, also known as the Federal Reserve Board, is the national component of the Federal Reserve System. The board consists of the seven governors, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Governors serve 14-year, staggered terms to ensure stability and continuity over time. The chairman and vice-chairman are appointed to four-year terms and may be reappointed subject to term limitations.

-You literally don't know what the fuck you are talking about.-

.MASSHOLE.Someone who studied economics and is capable of actually reading literature about it. So you are nobody, like me.


He said he wants to stop banks gambling with deposits. They are already not allowed to because of the Volcker Rule. Dont be so naive

How much gambling will Volcker Rule actually stop?

Under the Volcker Rule, banks will still be allowed to hedge their risk. JPMorgan, as a core business, lends billions of dollars to big corporations. If these corporations start defaulting on their debts, JPMorgan is in trouble. The bank, accordingly, hedged against this risk You can see why regulators wouldn't want to infringe on hedging by banks. But you could also see how a clever bank could use hedging exceptions as a loophole through which to engage in the same profit-seeking proprietary trading the Volcker Rule intends to stop.

He wants the President and Senate to have a say in who gets appointed to the Federal Reserve. Beyond stupid for reasons you should be able to figure out on your own. Who's stupid?

Board of Governors
The Board of Governors, located in Washington, D.C., provides the leadership for the System.
The Board of Governors, also known as the Federal Reserve Board, is the national component of the Federal Reserve System. The board consists of the seven governors, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Governors serve 14-year, staggered terms to ensure stability and continuity over time. The chairman and vice-chairman are appointed to four-year terms and may be reappointed subject to term limitations.

-You literally don't know what the fuck you are talking about.-

PCPRINCIPALBoard of Governors
The Board of Governors, located in Washington, D.C., provides the leadership for the System.
The Board of Governors, also known as the Federal Reserve Board, is the national component of the Federal Reserve System. The board consists of the seven governors, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Governors serve 14-year, staggered terms to ensure stability and continuity over time. The chairman and vice-chairman are appointed to four-year terms and may be reappointed subject to term limitations.

-You literally don't know what the fuck you are talking about.-

Do some reading on the Federal Reserve. The Board of Governors is one aspect.

You have also have 12 Regional Banks that are lead by a singular head with 9 members, 6 elected by member banks and the other 3 appointed by the local head. They set discount rates, subject to approval by the BOG, monitor local economic conditions, and conduct research.

Bernie wants to get rid of those 6 elected by member banks and put that in control of the government.

You also have the FOMC, which consists of the BOG as well as 5 Regional Presidents, who again are appointed by those 9 members of the regional member banks. The FOMC is actually the key body for policy making (including interest rates), not the BOG.

So please, do some learning.


Nice job taking one article pointing out some of the supposed short comings of the Volcker Rule. That article was written in 2013, the Volcker Rule only came fully into effect in 2015. Pure speculation on that author's part.

http://fortune.com/2015/07/22/volcker-rule/


Why is it stupid? Let us start with the obvious. Politicians are purely looking at the short-term. 4 year terms means they want short term results, not long term results. Therefore, politicians will start electing members to the Federal Reserve Banks who serve their short-term interests, not those of longer term.

Secondly, it is opening the door to bring financial incentives into play. That board member that Senator Smith wants to elect? He paid for Senator Smith's campaign and works for a bank that needs a certain set of market conditions to increase profits. Senator Smith is there for going to try to elect this member over another.

Finally, the actions of the Federal Reserve influence more than the United States. Any country that uses the Dollar as its main currency will feel the effect of any policy change. By opening it to election and combining the other two factors, there will be an increase in potential volatility across the globe.


What about my other points?

Does Bernie know what the NAIRU is?

What about his contradictory idea about interest rates?

And the whole FCC/Verizon/Comcast debacle? Hypocritical no?

Bernie may be smart, but he sounded like an idiot with this. Him and Rand Paul should get together

Merry Christmas.

PCPRINCIPAL-You literally don't know what the fuck you are talking about.-

.

PCPRINCIPALBanks want FDIC to protect themselves from losses incurred by making bad or risky investments. We, the taxpayers, will pay for their stupidity and that's how the banks want it. The banks are holding the economy hostage to their success because we will be forced to cover their losses, hence they are "to big to be allowed to fail". A large bank's failure could literally bankrupt the Federal Treasury.
That's probably why Hillary doesn't support Glass-Steagal's reinstatement. Her paymasters on Wall Street don't want it and she wants their money. That's also why no Republicans support reinstatement of Glass-Steagal either. They are all puppets of Wall Street, begging for money to run their campaigns.

The combination of Citizen's United and Repeal of Glass-Steagal have synergistically caused an existential threat to the United States. MONEY RULES!

You're so uninformed it is unreal.

Of the firms that caused the 08 crises, only a few of the major players were traditional banks (Citi and BoA). The rest, (Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley) were purely investment banks. Others were thrifts like Washington Mutual and Countrywide, then obviously you had your Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and finally AIG, an insurance company.

So Glass-Steagal would most likely have not prevented this from occurring and would not help any future crises either.

PCPRINCIPAL.

Please, prove my points wrong. Each point, like I have done for yours.

Until then, you are just spewing rhetoric without thought and are no better than the Trump supporters.

PCPRINCIPAL.

Hey no need to act like that suckpump compeador, masshole is one of the better posters in this thread and hasn't flooded this shit with personal attacks like many others in here. You may not agree with his views but don't lower your standards to the aforementioned scuzzturd.

.MASSHOLE.Do some reading on the Federal Reserve. The Board of Governors is one aspect.

You have also have 12 Regional Banks that are lead by a singular head with 9 members, 6 elected by member banks and the other 3 appointed by the local head. They set discount rates, subject to approval by the BOG, monitor local economic conditions, and conduct research.

Bernie wants to get rid of those 6 elected by member banks and put that in control of the government.

You also have the FOMC, which consists of the BOG as well as 5 Regional Presidents, who again are appointed by those 9 members of the regional member banks. The FOMC is actually the key body for policy making (including interest rates), not the BOG.

So please, do some learning.


Nice job taking one article pointing out some of the supposed short comings of the Volcker Rule. That article was written in 2013, the Volcker Rule only came fully into effect in 2015. Pure speculation on that author's part.

http://fortune.com/2015/07/22/volcker-rule/


Why is it stupid? Let us start with the obvious. Politicians are purely looking at the short-term. 4 year terms means they want short term results, not long term results. Therefore, politicians will start electing members to the Federal Reserve Banks who serve their short-term interests, not those of longer term.

Secondly, it is opening the door to bring financial incentives into play. That board member that Senator Smith wants to elect? He paid for Senator Smith's campaign and works for a bank that needs a certain set of market conditions to increase profits. Senator Smith is there for going to try to elect this member over another.

Finally, the actions of the Federal Reserve influence more than the United States. Any country that uses the Dollar as its main currency will feel the effect of any policy change. By opening it to election and combining the other two factors, there will be an increase in potential volatility across the globe.


What about my other points?

Does Bernie know what the NAIRU is? How the fuck would any of us know the answer to this, including you.

What about his contradictory idea about interest rates?

And the whole FCC/Verizon/Comcast debacle? Hypocritical no?

Bernie may be smart, but he sounded like an idiot with this. Him and Rand Paul should get together

Granite_StateHey no need to act like that suckpump compeador, masshole is one of the better posters in this thread and hasn't flooded this shit with personal attacks like many others in here. You may not agree with his views but don't lower your standards to the aforementioned scuzzturd.

Anyone who believes they know more about economics then a member of the senate and posts it on a ski forum deserves to be ridiculed.

Here are a few of Sanders's most sweeping proposals:
Fundamentally restructure the Fed's governance system to eliminate conflicts of interests. While the president appoints the seven members of the central bank's board, subject to the approval of the Senate, the nine-member boards of the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks are selected by member banks and the Board of Governors.
Sanders insists this procedure is rife with the potential for conflicts of interest and is tantamount to letting the fox guard the hen house. Next year, for example, four of the 12 presidents at the regional Federal Reserve banks will be former executives from one firm, Goldman Sachs. Sanders says regional Fed board members should be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Moreover, banking industry executives must no longer be allowed to serve on the Fed's regional boards.
Increase transparency in the Fed's operations. Sanders says far too much of the Fed's business is conducted in secret. He is calling for the public release of full and un-redacted transcripts of the Federal Open Market Committee, the chief policy-making group, within six months, instead of the customary five years. "If we had made this reform in 2004, the American people would have learned about the housing bubble well in advance of the financial crisis," Sanders wrote. He also favors requiring a full, annual audit of the Fed's operations by the Government Accountability Office.
Require the Fed to pressure regulated banks on the types of loans they make. Sanders said it should be the Fed's duty to make sure that financial institutions are investing in "the productive economy" by providing affordable loans to small businesses and consumers with the aim of creating good jobs. This can be achieved in part by discontinuing a Fed policy begun in 2008 to pay financial interest on excess reserved kept at the central bank — reserves that have reached $2.4 trillion. "Instead of paying banks interest on these reserves, the Fed should charge them a fee that would be used to provide direct loans to small businesses," Sanders wrote.
Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act and break up the too big to fail financial institutions that threaten the economy. Sanders writes that commercial banks must be discouraged from "gambling with the deposits of the American people." This could be done in part by reinstating Glass-Steagall, which for decades required a firewall of sorts between commercial banking and securities investment.

PCPRINCIPALAnyone who believes they know more about economics then a member of the senate and posts it on a ski forum deserves to be ridiculed.

Sorry but politicians aren't usually economics professors. Its not unreasonable for a person who studies economics as a major to have the same understanding of economic policy as a politician who has a general knowledge on top of all the other stuff they have to know. Sorry but that is a weak argument. Just because you post on a ski forum doesn't limit your knowledge of a subject.

PCPRINCIPALHere are a few of Sanders's most sweeping proposals:
Fundamentally restructure the Fed's governance system to eliminate conflicts of interests. While the president appoints the seven members of the central bank's board, subject to the approval of the Senate, the nine-member boards of the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks are selected by member banks and the Board of Governors.
Sanders insists this procedure is rife with the potential for conflicts of interest and is tantamount to letting the fox guard the hen house. Next year, for example, four of the 12 presidents at the regional Federal Reserve banks will be former executives from one firm, Goldman Sachs. Sanders says regional Fed board members should be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Moreover, banking industry executives must no longer be allowed to serve on the Fed's regional boards.
Increase transparency in the Fed's operations. Sanders says far too much of the Fed's business is conducted in secret. He is calling for the public release of full and un-redacted transcripts of the Federal Open Market Committee, the chief policy-making group, within six months, instead of the customary five years. "If we had made this reform in 2004, the American people would have learned about the housing bubble well in advance of the financial crisis," Sanders wrote. He also favors requiring a full, annual audit of the Fed's operations by the Government Accountability Office.
Require the Fed to pressure regulated banks on the types of loans they make. Sanders said it should be the Fed's duty to make sure that financial institutions are investing in "the productive economy" by providing affordable loans to small businesses and consumers with the aim of creating good jobs. This can be achieved in part by discontinuing a Fed policy begun in 2008 to pay financial interest on excess reserved kept at the central bank — reserves that have reached $2.4 trillion. "Instead of paying banks interest on these reserves, the Fed should charge them a fee that would be used to provide direct loans to small businesses," Sanders wrote.
Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act and break up the too big to fail financial institutions that threaten the economy. Sanders writes that commercial banks must be discouraged from "gambling with the deposits of the American people." This could be done in part by reinstating Glass-Steagall, which for decades required a firewall of sorts between commercial banking and securities investment.

You are literally reposting articles that have holes in them. I have pointed out the holes.

Again.

1. He wants to politicize the Federal Reserve, therefore creating the same issues with conflicts of interest. Is the elected official now a member of the government that elected him or is he fully independent? Politicians are short-term, the Fed is long term. You cannot have a short-term body electing an official that deals with long term events.

2. The FOMC does release minutes. http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomccalendars.htm I have not looked into the details of every meeting, but the Fed is VERY transparent with those issues surrounding interest rates.

3. So the Fed wants to charge interest on money the regulated banks keep in the Fed. Great, so now interest rates will be higher. Makes sense. But that is what he speaking out against.

4. The GS Act will not CHANGE those institutions. I stated before, the GS was aimed at banks that no longer function in that manner.

Please, at least read what I write before spewing off the same exact article that has now been posted 3 times.

Granite_StateSorry but politicians aren't usually economics professors. Its not unreasonable for a person who studies economics as a major to have the same understanding of economic policy as a politician who has a general knowledge on top of all the other stuff they have to know. Sorry but that is a weak argument. Just because you post on a ski forum doesn't limit your knowledge of a subject.

Thank you. Politicians are not economists. Should an MD be able to speak to a PhD in biology or chemistry because they deal with both those things in their work? No.

Why the fuck would I trust information coming from some dipshit on a ski forum with little to no experience over information coming from someone with 30+ years of political experience. Why would I do that? How does that make any sense?

.MASSHOLE.You are literally reposting articles that have holes in them. I have pointed out the holes.

Again.

1. He wants to politicize the Federal Reserve, therefore creating the same issues with conflicts of interest. Is the elected official now a member of the government that elected him or is he fully independent? Politicians are short-term, the Fed is long term. You cannot have a short-term body electing an official that deals with long term events.

2. The FOMC does release minutes. http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomccalendars.htm I have not looked into the details of every meeting, but the Fed is VERY transparent with those issues surrounding interest rates.

3. So the Fed wants to charge interest on money the regulated banks keep in the Fed. Great, so now interest rates will be higher. Makes sense. But that is what he speaking out against.

4. The GS Act will not CHANGE those institutions. I stated before, the GS was aimed at banks that no longer function in that manner.

Please, at least read what I write before spewing off the same exact article that has now been posted 3 times.



Thank you. Politicians are not economists. Should an MD be able to speak to a PhD in biology or chemistry because they deal with both those things in their work? No.

1. Fucking stupid.
"Politicians are short-term, the Fed is long term. You cannot have a short-term body electing an official that deals with long term events." Wow.... Solid point....
2."The Fed is very transparent." Since when?????
3.???
4.Regardless of whether or not the Banking Act of 1933 is the solution or not doesnt change the fact that too big to fail banks should be broken up.


Hey btw, did you know Economics is considered a Psuedo-science by the majority of the science community?

It's no wonder, then, that the real-world implementation of mainstream economic ideas has been a string of massive failures. Economic thinking undergirded the "deregulation" mantra leading up to the Great Recession of 2007-2009, and has fared no better in attempts to "fix" the ongoing crisis in Europe. However, nowhere is the discipline's failure more apparent than in the area of development economics. In fact, the only countries that have effectively transformed from the "Third" to the "First World" since World War II violated the main principles of current and previous economic orthodoxies: China plus the "East Asian Tigers" of Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea, whose policies entailed extensive state intervention into the economy, institutional reforms and the manipulation of prices and markets. Only recently have economists come to accept the primacy of institutions in explaining and promoting economic growth, a position long held by sociologists and political scientists.


Your entire argument is based on the idea that sanders doesn't know what he's talking about because he's not an economists. Well that doesn't matter and it's never mattered. what you are really saying is that politicians shouldn't be in charge of the economy, which is a long ongoing debate economists hopelessly hold onto and is ridiculous.

PCPRINCIPAL1. Fucking stupid.
"Politicians are short-term, the Fed is long term. You cannot have a short-term body electing an official that deals with long term events." Wow.... Solid point....
2."The Fed is very transparent." Since when?????
3.???
4.Regardless of whether or not the Banking Act of 1933 is the solution or not doesnt change the fact that too big to fail banks should be broken up.


Hey btw, did you know Economics is considered a Psuedo-science by the majority of the science community?

It's no wonder, then, that the real-world implementation of mainstream economic ideas has been a string of massive failures. Economic thinking undergirded the "deregulation" mantra leading up to the Great Recession of 2007-2009, and has fared no better in attempts to "fix" the ongoing crisis in Europe. However, nowhere is the discipline's failure more apparent than in the area of development economics. In fact, the only countries that have effectively transformed from the "Third" to the "First World" since World War II violated the main principles of current and previous economic orthodoxies: China plus the "East Asian Tigers" of Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea, whose policies entailed extensive state intervention into the economy, institutional reforms and the manipulation of prices and markets. Only recently have economists come to accept the primacy of institutions in explaining and promoting economic growth, a position long held by sociologists and political scientists.


Your entire argument is based on the idea that sanders doesn't know what he's talking about because he's not an economists. Well that doesn't matter and it's never mattered. what you are really saying is that politicians shouldn't be in charge of the economy, which is a long ongoing debate economists hopelessly hold onto and is ridiculous.

You are so caught up in the Sanders circlejerk it is unreal.

My point with number 3 is that Bernie literally contradicted himself. He calls for the Federal Reserve to have its member banks with excess reserves charged money to hold them in the Fed. Do you know what that is? An interest rate. Do you know what banks do when the Fed raises interest rates? They raise them too.

But Bernie doesn't want that higher interest rates! Whoopsies!

I really question whether or not you are capable of your own critical thinking because every time you try to counter a point, you repost an op-ed that fits your narrative. Point and case, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/02/09/are-economists-overrated/overreliance-on-the-pseudo-science-of-economics

Hell, that article lost any credibility when it suggested sociologists are "better" than economists. Sociology is a pseudoscience as well.

If you are unwilling to see the validity of the points I provided, so be it. You're an ostrich with his head stuck in the sand.

Should we trust Bernie on Supreme Court events? I mean, he is a politician and he deals with those issues all the time right?

That is what you are saying. A man with no judicial background or history of understanding of the law should be listened to when it comes to issues of the Constitution and Amendments because he has been around it for 30 years.

Sorry, doesn't fly with me.

Don't let the Nobel prize fool you. Economics is not a science
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/nobel-prize-economics-not-science-hubris-disaster#comments

.MASSHOLE.Should we trust Bernie on Supreme Court events? I mean, he is a politician and he deals with those issues all the time right?

That is what you are saying. A man with no judicial background or history of understanding of the law should be listened to when it comes to issues of the Constitution and Amendments because he has been around it for 30 years.

Sorry, doesn't fly with me.

I would certainly trust him over you. That's been my only point this whole time. Your thick pretentious ego can't see that.

PCPRINCIPAL Don't let the Nobel prize fool you. Economics is not a science
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/nobel-prize-economics-not-science-hubris-disaster#comments

Never called Economics a science. Never said it was perfect. Never said it contained all the answers people need.

But what it does contain are a set of theories that can help guide actions of politicians and bankers so long as they are understood.

PCPRINCIPALI would certainly trust him over you. That's been my only point this whole time. Your thick pretentious ego can't see that.

How can you trust a man on economics when he blatantly contradicts himself? It goes to prove he knows less than an economist yet is decrying a change so radical that it would throw the whole financial system into chaos and you are supporting him blindly.

You are no better than the Trump supporters when you do this.

Politicians should not be able to influence the central bank as drastically as he proposes. Politicians do not understand economics like economists or bankers do. They are short-term goal oriented, federal banks are not. If you cannot see that then you are sticking your head in the sand.

PCPRINCIPALI would certainly trust him over you. That's been my only point this whole time. Your thick pretentious ego can't see that.

Dude you really fucking suck.

J-SwayDude you really fucking suck.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has scheduled a historic Jan. 12 vote on a bill, colloquially referred to as "Audit the Fed," which was introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). The bill would authorize the GAO to perform full audits of the Federal Reserve System.

PCPRINCIPALMeanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has scheduled a historic Jan. 12 vote on a bill, colloquially referred to as "Audit the Fed," which was introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). The bill would authorize the GAO to perform full audits of the Federal Reserve System.

Not sure why it is "historic" when they have tried the same thing in 2011 and 2014 both with limited success.

Ironically Sanders watered down the last attempt to audit the Fed. Look up the Federal Reserve Transparency Act and compare the versions proposed by Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders. Quite different.

Granite_StateHey no need to act like that suckpump compeador, masshole is one of the better posters in this thread and hasn't flooded this shit with personal attacks like many others in here. You may not agree with his views but don't lower your standards to the aforementioned scuzzturd.

Looks like I'm really getting to you! Good, you're trash.

PCPRINCIPAL

cool

"I'm Bernie Sanders, and I'm a socialist for social media"

It's funny since the people on social media are his only supporters.

https://amp.twimg.com/v/b137f4ff-1df2-447a-8ae9-a6918700c99a

Campeador"I'm Bernie Sanders, and I'm a socialist for social media"

It's funny since the people on social media are his only supporters.

https://amp.twimg.com/v/b137f4ff-1df2-447a-8ae9-a6918700c99a