.MASSHOLE.Oh agreed, it certainly was a bad move that created a conflict of interest. But it was not "just" banks. It was also housing thrifts, governmental agencies, governmental policies, etc. They all played a very important role in what happened. Without going into too much detail, the governmental policies encouraged lending through interest rates and public programs. The banks just took control of the market provided and played with fire that burned them, badly, and spilled over onto the public. The bonuses are absolutely indefensible however. But that being said, millions is a small percentage of trillions (not that that is an excuse).
Not many economists, only a select few. Many saw a shift in the global economy, but not like this. http://www.economicpredictions.org/who-predicted-the-financial-crisis.htm
Go back further than that. Look at the Medici's. Banking needs to have a strong regulatory body, and it does not. Glass-Steagall will not change that. Breaking up banks will not do that (nor is it actually possible). Governmental enforcement and strict supervision will.
Thanks for the post. Appreciate having an actual discussion and not just yelling back and forth. I will say though, didnt the SEC recieve major cuts in staffing under the Bush admin? I know they weren't really regulating but to cut down on them when we really needed them most was an incredibly poor move.
And look at countries like Iceland, as soon as they deregulated the banks, the banks in turn began borrowing to the tune of over 100 billion, 10 times that of the total economy. And what happened to the regulators left? Many were offered jobs by the banks. Cant really get more regressive than that.
The SEC in this day and age is about as useful as the DEA. We need to change that, for the millions and millions of Americans deeply affected by the banks poor decisions.
CampeadorYou cannot simply pick from the very few "successes" in socialism, and ignore all the failures. What is the combined total population of Scandinavia, 20 million? Let's not forget all the failed basket cases of socialism, like Cuba, Venezuela, and just about every other country not formerly populated by vikings.
You are out of your mind if you think the Koch brothers and other billionaires can pay for socialized healthcare, and free tuition. Even if you taxed all billionaires at 100% you wouldn't be able to pay for it. What the socialists always lie about is that its not about taxing the rich, it's about raising taxes on the middle class. The safety net is not supposed to be a hammock. But it's ok, I understand that most people like you don't get this.
Of course the middle class will pay more, but not nearly as much as the upper class. And we currently have universal healthcare, it certainly hasnt broke the back of the average citizen. Im not even an advocate for Obamacare, it was rushed and poorly planned and turned out horribly. But the system could easily be refined.
In regards to "free tuition", once again not talking private institutions, shit its mainly two year degrees at public schools (ive said this like 100 times). Perfectly feasible to fund.
CampeadorTake your Newspeak somewhere else.
Just because you put the word "democratic" in front of socialist, doesn't magically cleanse it and make it all cupcakes and rainbows.
So let me ask you this, since Sanders want to tax "Wall Street speculation" in order to pay for every last thing that he proposes, where does the money come from when Wall Street tanks?
Hey man, capitalism. If the banks fail, they fail. Isnt that how the system is supposed to work? If you dont pay taxes or your mortgage you go to jail and lose your home. There should be no exception to the banks and investment firms that grossly, and knowingly, mismanage their (oops I meant other peoples) money.
Also unfortunately for you, socialism and democratic socialism are, by definition, two different things. One system has failures and successes all over the globe, the other one we already practice.
