Listen to Barney Frank’s plans for “non-bank financial institutions”. Look at the smirk on the face of Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner. Who stands to gain by this?
Anything outside of Putting the Glass-Steagal act back in place and dismantling the Derivatives Bubble is just more crap flowing down hill
(from Capital Hill)
Who Stands to Gain from Crushing Banks abunch of banks?
(Why J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs, whove out performed the market by around 600% as a reward for their economic terrorism and causing a global recession)
Or should I say, as a reward for backing Obama, assuring his administration was Filled with their cronies, ex-employees and lobbyists.
(Otherwise, they’d at best be in Jail for Life, or worse hanged for treason)
Oh yeah, as a nifty bonus they Murder their only competitors and get to gobble up their remains like good little psychotic evil Bastards.
Oh yeah, they also got to buy the worlds largest innsurance company
And the Worlds Largest Automaker
(For Pennies on the Dollar)
And they Made us Pay the Bill…
This Country is Insane,
Sometimes I think It’s Population deserves their status as Chattel
Argh, remind me to listen to this later, I’m at school atm.
It’s nonsense to say that regulation threatens financial institutions when the financial institutions fell to their knees directly because of their own irresponsible actions that they were allowed to do only after the repeal of regulations forbidding them to do so–which were the same regulations put in place after the Great Depression to ensure that the banking crisis and stock market crash that initiated the Great Depression would not happen again. Coincidence? I think not.
@Roninsabum - He says outright he wants to kill them, or make it very uncomfortable for them to exist!
It’s the unregulated financial institutions that threatened the world economy. And now they have returned to their risky investment behavior and large bonuses, courtesy of taxpayer bailout money and almost free loans from the Fed.
Former Fed chair Paul Volcker believes that the proposed regulations are not enough to prevent future failures and bailouts.
In your clip he said “we will be providing a mechanism for putting non-bank financial institutions out of everybody’s misery,” and then clarifies he’s referring specifically to the non-bank financial institutions that are considered too big to fail, there by requiring the kind of bailout that conservatives have so strongly protested against. It’s difficult to imagine how conservatives can be so strongly against the bailout of these kinds of companies (the kind that would drag the rest of society, small business throughout the country, down with them) while simultaneously being against the prevention of their necessity in the first place. It’s a direct contradiction.
Further, I’ve heard Frank speak about his proposed structural change several times and it’s always the same: he want to have regulations in place that prevent an incentive structure in these financial institutions where traders can make risky gambles with other peoples’ money in such a way that they profit heavily from success, but don’t lose anything from failure–rather, it is the other people whose money was put to risk that lose out. You’re taking the words out of context and rearranging them to mean something entirely different, and therefore arguing against a proposition that isn’t being proposed at all.
You can’t regulate morals and ethics back into business.
It sure won’t help us any. If anything, it is the most blatant power grab of theirs to date.
it seems we all lost quite a bit from their absence.
I like what Jefferson said- keep your government and your banks small. And he was also right that once a party figures out it can buy power by promising goodies to the electorate- well there goes our free republic. When will we learn?
Comments (12)
Anything outside of Putting the Glass-Steagal act back in place and dismantling the Derivatives Bubble is just more crap flowing down hill
(from Capital Hill)
Who Stands to Gain from Crushing Banks abunch of banks?
(Why J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs, whove out performed the market by around 600% as a reward for their economic terrorism and causing a global recession)
Or should I say, as a reward for backing Obama, assuring his administration was Filled with their cronies, ex-employees and lobbyists.
(Otherwise, they’d at best be in Jail for Life, or worse hanged for treason)
Oh yeah, as a nifty bonus they Murder their only competitors and get to gobble up their remains like good little psychotic evil Bastards.
Oh yeah, they also got to buy the worlds largest innsurance company
And the Worlds Largest Automaker
(For Pennies on the Dollar)
And they Made us Pay the Bill…
This Country is Insane,
Sometimes I think It’s Population deserves their status as Chattel
@kirbym - ding ding ding! Exactly right!
Argh, remind me to listen to this later, I’m at school atm.
It’s nonsense to say that regulation threatens financial institutions when the financial institutions fell to their knees directly because of their own irresponsible actions that they were allowed to do only after the repeal of regulations forbidding them to do so–which were the same regulations put in place after the Great Depression to ensure that the banking crisis and stock market crash that initiated the Great Depression would not happen again. Coincidence? I think not.
@Roninsabum - He says outright he wants to kill them, or make it very uncomfortable for them to exist!
It’s the unregulated financial institutions that threatened the world economy. And now they have returned to their risky investment behavior and large bonuses, courtesy of taxpayer bailout money and almost free loans from the Fed.
Former Fed chair Paul Volcker believes that the proposed regulations are not enough to prevent future failures and bailouts.
In your clip he said “we will be providing a mechanism for putting non-bank financial institutions out of everybody’s misery,” and then clarifies he’s referring specifically to the non-bank financial institutions that are considered too big to fail, there by requiring the kind of bailout that conservatives have so strongly protested against. It’s difficult to imagine how conservatives can be so strongly against the bailout of these kinds of companies (the kind that would drag the rest of society, small business throughout the country, down with them) while simultaneously being against the prevention of their necessity in the first place. It’s a direct contradiction.
Further, I’ve heard Frank speak about his proposed structural change several times and it’s always the same: he want to have regulations in place that prevent an incentive structure in these financial institutions where traders can make risky gambles with other peoples’ money in such a way that they profit heavily from success, but don’t lose anything from failure–rather, it is the other people whose money was put to risk that lose out. You’re taking the words out of context and rearranging them to mean something entirely different, and therefore arguing against a proposition that isn’t being proposed at all.
You can’t regulate morals and ethics back into business.
It sure won’t help us any. If anything, it is the most blatant power grab of theirs to date.
it seems we all lost quite a bit from their absence.
I like what Jefferson said- keep your government and your banks small. And he was also right that once a party figures out it can buy power by promising goodies to the electorate- well there goes our free republic. When will we learn?