Robert Reich DEBATING Barney Frank

[Segami]

Bankster Barney bucking for a Clinton appointment?.......

Regardless, bankster is nothing more than a bloated, condescending SOS.

Love how they always let Barney Frank go first. What a joke

[Segami]

1. Oh,...Bankster Barney doesn't feel the Bern?.....why?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

36. Because, as your nickname for him suggests, he's thoroughly corrupt. No surprises here. nt

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

2. Thanks for posting! Bernie had to respond to an inept interview who believed he scooped Sanders with

his Fed questioning. Thom Hartmann was talking about that today, the Fed isn't germaine to the discussion.

[desmiller]

3. The way Frank keeps asking about the numbers, it sounds like he has something

to lose if the banks are broken up.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

4. In addition to the Fed chairmen Reich mentioned, he probably and intentionally didn't

hit him with Elizabeth Warren, who famously agreed with Republicans that Dodd-Frank isn't perfect, then pivoted and said, it didn't go far enough. It should have broken up the big banks.

[JDPriestly]

5. Barney Frank may be right about the limited Dodd-Frank bill's view of the too big to fail issue and

the definition of a bank that is too big to fail according to Dodd-Frank.

But I agree with Bernie Sanders' view that our largest banks need to be broken up.

The five banks that control 44% of our banking sector according to Robert Reich don't just have political power. Barney Frank is right that smaller banks including community banks and credit unions when allied, when organized and working together to lobby Congress and support specific members of Congress and the government have a lot of political clout.

But political clout is not the only kind of power that the banks have.

When we have 5 banks dominating our banking sector (which is a huge part of our financial sector in general), the risk that any one of the banks could fail very quickly and spread vast chaos in the world's financial networks is extremely great.

Institutional debt and the financial chaos that can arise suddenly in times of catastrophe or rapid social change should be grave concerns and may not be readily evident prior to the catastrophic or social event.

It is not just a matter of making sure that the debt to asset ratios of the banks are within a certain "safe" measure. It is making sure that risk and those who make decisions about risk and investment are not too few and too centralized. The danger of allowing banks to be too large and big banks to be too few and to have too much financial influence in our economy is that the decisions about investments and debt are made by too few people.

As in the natural world, in our economy, we need diversity and variety. The five very large banks we have cannot support much less create the kind of ecology we need for our economy.

If we had smaller but more banks, we might have, for example, better and more investment in alternative energy. Our healthcare system might be more cost conscious and place more pressure on the pharmaceutical companies to lower some of their prices.

Why might we have a more vibrant economy if our banks were less centralized? Because the bankers would not be so invested in maintaining the status quo in terms of the companies they invest in. There would be more competition among the powerful banks because there would be more of them.

We would get different values and different points of view, many more than we have today, deciding what companies receive investments, what companies' profits are protected and what companies get the money for innovation.

It isn't just a matter of the safety of the banking sector. It is also a matter of providing incentives for a more diverse investment strategy and therefore a healthier and more vibrant economy.

That's my lay opinion.

I'm a gardener. I love tomatoes and vegetables, but I am finding more and more that I need to plant certain flowers among my vegetables if I am to get a healthy harvest.

I have avocado trees. I have to let the wood sorrel grow under the trees during the wood sorrel season. Wood sorrel does not provide food, but it attracts bees and just happens to thrive (in most years) right when my avocado trees blossom. Hence if I encourage a greater variety of plants in my garden, I get more bees and more avocados as a result of pollination by the bees.

If we are to have a thriving ecology, a working together of very different parts of our economy without having an economy that is subject to a lot of authoritative planning, we need to allow more diversity. Having so few banks discourages the diversity we need.

Out here on Main Street, we feel the stagnation that our restricted banking system is imposing on us.

We almost have to pay the banks to keep our money safe for us. We hear a lot about the wonders of capitalism, but we don't have the competition in our banking system that capitalism is supposed to provide. So we want the banks broken up.

It isn't just about systemic safety and too much debt, Barney Frank. It is about much more than that.

That's my lay opinion.

[Meldread]

8. I agree with 90% of what you said.

But I agree with Bernie Sanders' view that our largest banks need to be broken up.

I agree the largest banks should be broken up as well, but Barneys challenging question really made me think. How big is too big? 50 Billion Dollars? 5 Billion Dollars? 1 Billion Dollars? 500 Million Dollars? 50 Million Dollars? Where are we drawing the lines and why? When crafting legislation, we have to actually consider what "too big" really means.

I agree with the sentiment of breaking up the big banks for all the reasons you outlined. However, what Barney Frank did was provide a clear measurement. Rather than focusing on "too big" he is focusing on systematic risk and indebtedness. That is part of what Dodd-Frank does. If something were to replace the Dodd-Frank measurement, it has to be articulated, so we can point to what banks we are specifically talking about.

The five banks that control 44% of our banking sector according to Robert Reich don't just have political power. Barney Frank is right that smaller banks including community banks and credit unions when allied, when organized and working together to lobby Congress and support specific members of Congress and the government have a lot of political clout.

But political clout is not the only kind of power that the banks have.

This was the problem I had with Robert Reich's argument, and where I thought it was weakest. Obviously, I agree that the Big Banks have immense influence in Washington D.C. Also, obviously, I would like to see that influence curbed. However, if this becomes the measurement by which we target the Big Banks, why stop at the banks? Why not target other institutions and break them up as well in order to reduce their political influence?

I am not even sure that it is constitutional, and besides, if our goal is to reduce their influence there are other ways to do that without even focusing on the banks. Public financing of campaigns, for example, as well as other laws that prevent corruption--such as preventing those in legislative bodies from working for the for-profit sector at least five to ten years after getting out of office. They can continue to be paid a salary and other benefits, and can do non-profit work instead. This includes not becoming a lobbyist. The same for those who work in legislative, executive, and judicial offices.

These might be more effective ways of working against big money influence.

[snowy owl]

14. Sherman Anti-Trust should be enforced. This isn't rocket science. We used to have laws in place.

Why the puzzling? Reich agreed it was both economics and politics. He even said "I agree." Barney couldn't stop blustering to hear Reich. They need to put a leash on Barney. He's going to hurt Hillary in the long run.

[Meldread]

26. Sherman Antitrust Act involves anti-competitive practices to block monopolies.

While the banks are extremely large, there is competition between them. There is no reason to believe that the Sherman Antitrust Act would apply. Maybe I am misunderstanding, of course. What part of the Sherman Antitrust Act are they violating, and why would it apply to them?

There are certainly laws on the books that DO apply to them that are not being properly enforced by regulators. However, that cuts against the arguments of Reich. After all, if the current laws are not being enforced, why would creating more laws suddenly make them enforceable?

The argument must first be that the regulatory system has to be fixed. There has to be a plan to do that. Then the laws that are already on the books can be enforced. Then we are still left with the problem: how big is too big? That question has to be answered if we are going to craft legislation to break up the big banks. Right now, there are no answers on that front.

[snowy owl]

46. So you're deciding how much competition denotes "competition? Better laws rather than more...

You keep putting up roadblocks for creating a safety net given all the corruption. Have you heard of the Panama Papers? The fix for a regulatory system will happen with the big banks quit being able to buy administrations and regulators. Last I heard, my small banks wasn't actually doing that.

I think you will argue and argue and argue against something that already shown a need. You can parse all day but you have a whole coterie of economists and politicians who disagree.

Again, how "big" correlates with "debt" might ba a place to start but you haven't gone there.

[Meldread]

55. That's not true.

I've made my position clear, if not to you, then elsewhere in this thread:

- I support breaking up the largest banks.

- I support this both because of the systemic risk I feel that they pose to the national and global economy, as well as because of the influence this gives them.

- I believe Dodd-Frank is a good stop-gap measure until we have something better.

- I believe we need something more aggressive and robust than Dodd-Frank.

This is really the challenge that Barney Frank put forward, essentially stating that if we believe that the big banks should be broken up (a position that he doesn't necessarily disagree with), then what is the measurement we are going to use to break them up? I don't have an answer to that question. I am not knowledgeable enough about how large financial institutions work to be qualified to give the answer. As discussed elsewhere, neither is Bernie Sanders. That is why he needs people around him to help him craft a plan. He does not yet have a clear plan, and therefore Robert Reich could not answer that basic question.

I agree with you that we should fix the regulatory system, but you don't need to break the banks up to do that. Additionally, there are lots of other areas outside of the banks the system needs to be improved. We all know how cozy the regulators have gotten with Big Oil in the past, for example. There are laws and plans that could be put forward to make the system stronger, more robust, and more effective. We should absolutely pursue that irrespective of issues surrounding large financial institutions.

Attacking me is not actually addressing the issue at hand. You can attack me all you want, but it will not change the fact that you never answered the question put before you. You claimed that it "isn't rocket science" and that all we needed to do was enforce the "Sherman Anti-Trust" Act. I responded with, "While the banks are extremely large, there is competition between them. There is no reason to believe that the Sherman Antitrust Act would apply. Maybe I am misunderstanding, of course. What part of the Sherman Antitrust Act are they violating, and why would it apply to them?"

It should be noted that you never addressed that question, and instead decided to attack me.

[JDPriestly]

16. Is it Constitutional?

Anti-trust legislation exists.

We need to improve it to apply to today's reality in which a few companies dominate so much of the business in specific sectors of our economy.

As for the exact size a bank should be, that is something that needs to be discussed and determined.

Problem is that the Dodd-Frank focus on debt insures a degree of systemic reliability and safety in the economy but does not insure the kind of diversity in for example kinds of savings accounts and lending that ordinary people need.

Also, many of us have moved our banking to credit unions and community banks precisely because we do not like the overwhelming power in our lives that the big banks can claim.

Who wants to have their mortgage, their credit card and their savings account as well as their checking account all in the same bank? For various reasons that is a stupid way to organize one's business matters. I won't discuss them here, but that is not a good idea.

But because there are so few banks, the choices are narrow.

You are on to something here:

"preventing those in legislative bodies from working for the for-profit sector at least five to ten years after getting out of office. They can continue to be paid a salary and other benefits, and can do non-profit work instead. This includes not becoming a lobbyist. The same for those who work in legislative, executive, and judicial offices."

The challenge is to have rules about the revolving door that don't discourage good people from running for office. The price for losing an election should not be too high.

Here in California, we have some term limits. That results in politicians focusing on what in the world they are going to run for next or how in the world they are going to get a good job when their public representation has finished during the last couple of years and sometimes during the entire period in which they are in office. -- a well meant rule that has an unintended, negative effect.

These are complex issues. I think Bernie is on the right track. I think that Hillary supporters misunderstand something about those of us who support Bernie. We are grateful that he is talking about issues and asking questions about things that touch our lives and that we feel need changing. We are not expecting him to have the perfect answers or even any answers to all of the issues and concerns he is raising.

This is the internet age. Some little 12-year-old kid in Montana can get on the internet (not talking about myself; I am an old lady, 72) and submit a wonderful idea for discussion that leads to the answer to the issue that we are discussing.

Communication that has been enabled on the internet will facilitate the resolution of many issues like the too big to fail or better yet, the too big to be good for our economy, banks. We will solve this issue. Dodd-Frank may prevent the failure of the big banks, but it does not by any means deal with the pressing issue of the too-big-to-support-a-vibrant-economy banks. Barney Frank is looking at the issue too narrowly. That's the problem I see here.

I read my post to my husband. He agreed with me and suggested that an example of a failure to diversify causing a great ecological failure that had terrible effects is the potato famine in Ireland. And it is a very good example of the dangers of too little diversity in a world in which diversity is essential for a healthy environment. I think that works for the economy too.

[Meldread]

28. Anti-Trust Laws exist, but that is not what Reich proposed...

What Reich said is that the banks should be broken up, not only because that they pose a systemic risk to the economy, but also because they have too much political influence. It is targeting the banks specifically to curb their political influence that I am not sure is Constitutional.

It's the reason I made the proposal regarding how we handle those leaving office. This is another way of tackling the same problem, but from the opposite direction.

[JDPriestly]

29. I think that the influence of so few very large banks on the economy is related to their

influence on the government. But the effect on the economy would be the key to breaking them up.

They do need to be broken up.

We do as little business with the big banks as we can, but they provide most of the credit cards. They are part of the reason that our Main Streets are not doing well while Wall Street is making so much profit.

We need more diversity in the banking system. That's for sure.

Of course, many people are, like us, staying away from the big banks. But the amounts of money we have are insignificant to the 5 big banks. They don't notice our absence at all.

[Meldread]

34. I don't disagree with any of that.

I agree that:

- The big banks should be broken up.

- They should be broken up due to the risk that they pose to the economy.

- They should be broken up because of the influence they have over the government.

- They should be broken up because greater diversity and competition is good for a market based economy.

All of those are the arguments you made, and I agree with all of them. The problem is that this is just a goal. There is nothing beyond that--no plan, no vision on how it will be done. Once we decide that they are too big to exist, we have to answer the question, "how big is too big?" Then we have to justify that answer. Once we do both of those things, we'll be on solid ground, and we'll know exactly what banks are impacted. Next, there has to be a concrete plan on how they'll be broken up.

Once we have all of those things on the table, then we can have a substantive discussion over the details of the plan. Right now, though, because the plan doesn't exist we can't have that discussion. So, people end up talking past each other. It's not like someone like Frank is "Rah-Rah Big Banks are awesome!" As he said in the debate / interview, he wanted to see people go to jail, and he blames the Obama administration for not prosecuting people. What he is arguing is that Dodd-Frank is really the only plan on the block that answers those previous questions.

While I think this makes Dodd-Frank a good stop-gap measure, I don't think it goes far enough. I don't necessarily think Barnie Frank would disagree with that assessment. Though he would likely argue about how difficult it was to even get what he got passed through Congress, and the relative unlikely fact that we could get something even more sweeping and aggressive through. That would be a fair assessment of the situation. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a clear plan even if it is only aspirational. That gives us something to campaign on, something that can be analysed by the public, and something that we can argue in favor of to the American people--who would likely be supportive of such a plan.

However, until such a plan exists we are left debating aspirational goals. That is not a good place to be.

[Prism]

41. Thanks to you and JDPriestly for that exchange

I really enjoyed reading that back and forth. Thoughtful and deliberative.

[senz]

57. Of course it's constitutional. It's done all the time

for various reasons.

Read about it: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/divestiture.asp

Furthermore, corporations are supposed to serve in the public interest and at the will of our democratically elected government. They are not sacrosanct. Our government is sacrosanct.

[Meldread]

59. Divestiture *IS* constitutional, but that isn't what was I talking about.

I don't know if you saw the interview, but here is what I was talking about. Barney Frank was pointing out that if Robert Reich was going to argue that the banks should be broken up, then he needed to create some type of criteria for it. He explained that Dodd-Frank did that through examining systemic risk and over leveraging. Robert Reich responded that it wasn't only the systemic economic risk that he was talking about. He was talking about their political influence as well.

It was Robert Reich's counter argument that I was responding too. If Robert is going to make the argument that we need to target big companies with lots of political influence and break them up, why are we limiting ourselves to just the Big Banks? Why not Exxon and Shell, for example? Why not massive tech giants like Apple and Microsoft? That was one half of the argument that I was making. The second half of the argument I was making was about the constitutionality. I was pointing out that I was not sure if it was constitutional to target a business for divestiture simply due to their political influence. I could imagine even the liberals on the SCOTUS ruling to say that such a law is not constitutional. Of course, I am not a lawyer, so maybe I am wrong. It just sounds odd to say, "I think you have too much political influence, so I am going to break you up... but only because you're a financial institution."

My response to this was to point out that there are other ways of handling this problem. Things like making laws that prevent former elected officials, regulators, staffers to elected officials, and those who work with contractors from working in the private sector for the next 5-10 years after leaving their position. Instead, give them full pay and benefits, and if they so desire they may work in the non-profit sector. There are other things that can be done as well to discourage corruption and collusion.

This is what I said in various places in this thread.

[senz]

62. It's not clear what Reich means by too much political influence.

If he had explained why size is a factor in it and why the political influence of banks can't be dealt with in other ways -- such as those you suggest -- his argument might be easier to assess. Clearly, an MSNBC discussion isn't long enough to explore the topic.

I agree, however, that large corporations (banks and otherwise) have way, way too much political influence to maintain democratic governance.

BTW, you sound thoughtful and reasonable, something I'm not accustomed to in Hillary supporters. So thanks.

[Meldread]

66. Thank you. I agree he didn't go into specifics about what he meant.

Thank you. I agree he didn't go into specifics about what he meant. Since he didn't do that, like you said, his full argument is hard to assess. Barney Frank didn't even engage it though, because I think he saw it as a diversion. I'm pretty sure what was foremost in Barney Frank's mind was to defend Dodd-Frank, one of his signature accomplishments as a legislator. It's obviously something he knows intimately, and something he is passionate about.

What I liked about the discussion was that I actually took away a stronger understanding of how Dodd-Frank treats over-leveraged financial institutions. It gave me more confidence in Dodd-Frank as a stop gap measure.

The opportunity that I feel that Robert Reich missed in the discussion, was to talk about it being ethically unacceptable that tax payers should be on the hook for bad business practices at too big to fail banks. This is where a policy proposal would come into play, as I suggested elsewhere, such as requiring the banks to purchase government insurance to help mitigate their risk. This could be one way of breaking up large financial institutions without having to do it directly, because the price of insurance could be so high that they might have to divest some of the more risky aspects of their businesses. This, of course, is a good thing for everyone. It strengthens the financial institution, and it protects tax payers and the economy.

Something like this could be a conceivable path forward. Something like this could be built on top of the existing Dodd-Frank regulations.

[beedle]

58. The amount of money is not necessarily the issue

Sure it can be part of the issue, but let's take one of the more recent examples of when a monopoly was looked at to be considered for 'break up' -- Microsoft.

At the time it was probably the most profitable company in the history of the world, which was of course part of the reason for considering it for break up, but no one considered that the way to break up MS was to create X different companies and divide the money up between the companies ... what was under consideration was what the 'business units' of MS were, and which ones could be looked at as an independent 'business unit" and whether these 'independent' business units could and/or should be broken off into their own company.

Now, Banks are different, and there may be some other considerations, including how the money might be split up, but I seriously doubt that once they look at the banks operations and find logical units that they can hive off to different companies, that how to 'divide up the money' will be a much more minor consideration.

And of course it's constitutional, we've taken down monopolies before, and we've taken down anti-trust companies. Matter of fact there has to be special laws created to protect certain 'necessary' monopolies at times (post office, telephone system, were all protected monopolies at one time.) MLB and NFL I believe are protected monopolies that require laws to protect them, at least in a limited manner.

[Meldread]

60. Your response is basically identical to someone elses here is what I said to them:

Divestiture *IS* constitutional, but that isn't what was I talking about. I don't know if you saw the interview, but here is what I was talking about. Barney Frank was pointing out that if Robert Reich was going to argue that the banks should be broken up, then he needed to create some type of criteria for it. He explained that Dodd-Frank did that through examining systemic risk and over leveraging. Robert Reich responded that it wasn't only the systemic economic risk that he was talking about. He was talking about their political influence as well.

It was Robert Reich's counter argument that I was responding too. If Robert is going to make the argument that we need to target big companies with lots of political influence and break them up, why are we limiting ourselves to just the Big Banks? Why not Exxon and Shell, for example? Why not massive tech giants like Apple and Microsoft? That was one half of the argument that I was making. The second half of the argument I was making was about the constitutionality. I was pointing out that I was not sure if it was constitutional to target a business for divestiture simply due to their political influence. I could imagine even the liberals on the SCOTUS ruling to say that such a law is not constitutional. Of course, I am not a lawyer, so maybe I am wrong. It just sounds odd to say, "I think you have too much political influence, so I am going to break you up... but only because you're a financial institution."

My response to this was to point out that there are other ways of handling this problem. Things like making laws that prevent former elected officials, regulators, staffers to elected officials, and those who work with contractors from working in the private sector for the next 5-10 years after leaving their position. Instead, give them full pay and benefits, and if they so desire they may work in the non-profit sector. There are other things that can be done as well to discourage corruption and collusion.

This is what I said in various places in this thread.

[MFM008]

6. no matter what you think of Barney Frank

its insanity to try to out debate him.

[pantsonfire]

11. At first I thought he was going to talk for the entire 10 minutes.....n/t

[snowy owl]

17. That's true, He can out-interrupt and out-shout the best of them.

As a poster(Renate) said when I posted this particular item, His obnoxiousness really overshadowed any case he may have been trying to make--I honestly could not bear listening to him.

I usually assume that if volume and bad manners are the only way of getting a point across, it's probably not a very good point.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511665418

[JDPriestly]

30. And he was off-topic and grouchy to boot.

If Chris Hayes had honestly wanted an answer to the question about Bernie's interview, he would have asked Robert Reich to speak first. But Chris Hayes like all the others on MSNBC has a Hillary for president sign on his back so he allowed Barney Frank to speak first. Obviously, Barney Frank has no idea what Bernie meant so it was useless to have Barney Frank define Bernie's intentions or interpret or discuss Bernie's answer to the question asked by the newspaper.

Very bad interview. Barney Frank talked about his own ideas and not about anything that Bernie said in the interview.

I would not be surprised but what Hillary or Barney Frank set up that scenario as a gotcha moment on Chris Hayes' show.

I wonder whether it is possible that MSNBC is INFORMALLY, UNOFFICIALLY (and therefore legally, of course), coordinating with some of the people on the Hillary campaign with regard to guests and programming? I am asking a question, not making a statement, because I have no way to know the answer without asking the question.

[bottomofthehill]

31. It becomes even more difficult to debate Barney on the bill that he wrote and carries his name.

The world is turning upside down when one of the great liberal lions of the 80's, 90's and 00's is now attached as a shill for the banks.....

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. And yet, that's exactly what he is: a shill for the (large) banks and financial institutions.

[Meldread]

7. I found this to be one of the most substantive discussions on this issue publicly.

I believe it highlights the differences in thinking wonderfully. Here, in part, is what I posted in another thread on this interview.

I actually found the discussion intense and enlightening. I actually think Barney made some strong points, and won the debate. His main point was this:

- If you are saying the Big Banks should be broken up, then how big is too big? Obviously, for legislation you are going to need some way of measuring it. Is it 500 billion, 50 billion, 5 billion, 5 million, 5 dollars--what is the number?

- The reason he was asking the question, was because Dodd-Frank already has an answer. Rather than trying to create an arbitrary number, Dodd-Frank measures debt and leverage. If a bank that could pose a systemic risk to the economy is over leveraged, Dodd-Frank forces the government to take certain actions to basically shut that bank down.

- Now, the obvious rebuttal here is that Dodd-Frank doesn't go far enough, because what happens if we have some really huge banking institutions that pose huge systemic risks to the system--a bank so large that the government cannot properly mitigate the risk? We may or may not have banks already in that territory, but as the banks continue to grow larger we will approach that point in the future. There is also the issue of morally leaving tax payers on the hook financially for a failing institution.

- Instead of going with that point, Robert Reich makes a completely counter intuitive argument that it isn't really about risk at all. it is about political power and influence. Whether or not you agree with this line of reasoning, the problem arises with how do you regulate that, and why just target the banks? It is unclear that such a regulation would even be constitutional.

- Barney didn't make this argument though, instead he spoke about his experience with fighting to get Dodd-Frank passed. He said the difficulty in getting it passed was not really from the Big Banks, as Robert Reich would have people believe, but it was instead from smaller banks and credit unions. The reason they posed a larger threat to the regulation, he argued, was because they all were community based and located in individual congress members districts. This intuitively makes sense, because this would mean that those individuals would likely have intimate ties with people in congress, and would likely do some personal lobbying against the bill.

There were some other points made, but this was the core meat of the debate. It centered around how to determine what too big to fail is, and whether the Dodd-Frank approach was correct or the Sanders approach is correct. Barney ended up coming out making a lot of sense, and Reich appeared to be a bit baffled--as if he wasn't expecting this line of attack, so he really didn't have real answers to the challenges.

I came away with the feeling that the best path forward is to stick with Dodd-Frank, but strengthen it in certain ways. For example, rather than leaving tax payers on the hook, setup a system where banks have to purchase "insurance", the "insurance" policies would help mitigate the growth of banks. If you grow too large what you'll have to pay will be through the roof. We can do risk assessments. This takes tax payers off the hook, and makes the industry responsible for itself. In addition to that there could also be some additional regulations to help mitigate and lower risk, something like a modern version of Glass-Steagall could be part of that plan. Some of Hillary Clinton's proposals, in particular those involving shadow banking, could also be part of that plan.

The problem, ultimately, is that Bernie Sanders has a clear goal but not a clear plan on how he intends to accomplish that goal. This is true on a lot of issues. This was how the debate ended up getting started.

[pantsonfire]

10. Back in 2008 the banks were "too big to fail" and now they are bigger....

.....I believe that is the soul of his argument. That is what we were sold on regarding the bank bailouts. We paid the big banks through our taxes and then they got bigger? Ok, so they are not indebted as much as they were then? What will the next sales pitch be? "Too indebted to fail"?

[Meldread]

12. I agree that they should be broken up.

However, as Robert's argument showed there is no real measurement for doing that. We have to say how big is too big so that we know what banks are impacted, and then we have to detail the process through which they are broken up.

That's the problem. I think most people agree that they are too big, and that they are dangerous. The question is how big is too big, and why are we drawing the line there?

[pantsonfire]

13. Well they were too big in 2008, so in my mind they passed it in 2008. n/t

[Meldread]

15. That doesn't answer the question.

Who is "they" -- you need to actually give a number so that we know what banks will be effected. That was Barney Frank's main point. We can shout "too big" "too big" "too big" all we want, but until you define what "too big" is you can't craft any legislation.

[snowy owl]

18. Meldread - sophistry. We had/have laws. Enforce them. Reinstate them. Parsing gets us nowhere.

[Meldread]

22. It is not sophistry. I agree regarding enforcing existing laws, but (and here is the critical part)

It is not sophistry. I agree regarding enforcing existing laws, but (and here is the critical part) if we cannot enforce the existing laws creating new laws to break up the banks is redundant and pointless. I believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with the regulatory system itself, and that needs to be addressed immediately.

This says nothing about Republicans actively blocking people from being appointed to do the jobs themselves--as they're doing right now on numerous government agencies that they don't like.

Your argument here is really an argument that we need to restructure the system so that it works properly. It doesn't even make sense to have an argument over what new laws should be in place if the existing laws aren't being enforced. You might as well be throwing your money into a wishing well, for all the good it would do us.

Understand, we are not divided based on goals or intentions. We are divided by approach.

Even once the system is working, the problem Barney Frank raises STILL stands. We would be required to define what "too big" looks like so that we could craft legislation to see it enforced. We can't simply say just the big banks as they currently stand, as that makes no sense. Once they are broken up there will simply be more big banks instead of fewer big banks. Even broken up, because they are so large, if one fails it could still cause systemic risk to the financial system.

Saying that we should break up the big banks sounds good. It is something I support for many reasons articulated by both Barney and Robert in their debate. However, there is a difference between having a goal or slogan and having an actual plan. Right now, all we have is a goal or slogan. Without a serious plan it is not a serious proposal, it is just wishful thinking.

When a clear plan is put forward, then we can actually have a discussion over substance, and will likely find a lot of common agreement. Because, once again, the disagreement isn't necessarily over the goal or intention. It is over the particulars of the approach.

[JDPriestly]

32. We could define the size of the bank by the percentage of the market that it comprises.

That's the way these things are decided and formulated.

It would not be a dollar amount but rather a percentage of the overall banking portion of our economy.

OK? That is how this is done.

And we see in Europe where they have national banks that are closely tied with the government, especially in the situation with Greece, what a problem banks that dominate too large a portion of the economy pose.

Al in proportion. It's not a dollar amount but a percentage of the economy.

[Meldread]

35. Okay. Then what percentage should it be?

Then why is it set at that percentage and not at a higher / lower percentage?

I think that way of thinking about it is fine. However, it doesn't change the nature of the problem.

[snowy owl]

47. So you think the "nature" of the problem is ...? Or are you chasing your tail here?

[Meldread]

51. The nature of the problem is this:

If we are going to say that some banks are too big to exist, we have to come up with criteria that outline which banks would be impacted. We have to do that in order to put forward a workable plan, that could then be translated into legislation, and then ultimately signed into law.

Until criteria is outlined, we are not having a policy debate, we are having a debate over a slogan or an aspirational goal.

[pantsonfire]

20. I suppose it doesn't, but I think the question is missing the point.

There are other ways to go about it, I agree, but you have to admit that the fact these banks have become more concentrated is a mockery of the "too big to fail" argument. (Side note: I think the media conglomerates should be broken up, six companies own 90% of all media, 1983 there were 50, last image)
http://www.lossofprivacy.com/index.php/2014/05/the-monopolies-in-america/

[Meldread]

23. I don't disagree.

I believe the big major banks should be broken up. I believe that they are too large and pose a systemic risk to the financial system. I also, like Robert, dislike their political influence. Too big to fail, too big to jail, means too big to exist. That is my opinion.

However, there is a difference between having a goal or slogan, and actually having a plan. That is really what the discussion is about. We have a goal, we have an intention, how is it going to be implemented? The moment we ask that question, we then have to answer another question: what does too big to exist look like?

I believe Dodd-Frank, if fully enforced, provides us with a stop-gap measure. I don't believe it goes far enough. However, what does going further look like? That is the problem we have at the moment. There literally is no plan. There is literally nothing we can look to in terms of a policy proposal and say, "this bank, this bank, and this bank would all be impacted and need to be broken up."

[JDPriestly]

19. This campaign is not the time to come up with that number -- how big a bank should be.

That is an issue that should be discussed by all concerned parties including the banks themselves.

This is why Bernie is calling for a democratic revolution, which involves not offering pat answers but calling out questions and seeking suggestions and answers from many sources.

Barney Frank wants Bernie to dictate answers. That is not Bernie's approach. Bernie is seeking to solve problems through democracy, through the participation of the governed.

The banks are too big. Dodd-Frank is aimed to prevent them from failing. But Dodd-Frank does not concern itself with placing limits on the banks to help our economy and our society SUCCEED.

Barney Frank's focus is too narrow. Bernie's is much wider.

So I think that Robert Reich won the debate.

But I understand that if you define the issue as Barney Frank did, then within that narrow definition, Barney said a lot of right words.

Problem is that Chris Hayes called on Barney Frank first and allowed him to establish the parameters of the discussion. Barney Frank set parameters that Bernie did not and would not set in my opinion. So the cards were kind of stacked in favor of Barney Frank who applied the measure in Dodd-Frank to what he defined as the issue.

Unfortunately, he was wrong because Bernie is not just talking about Dodd-Frank. He is talking about a much bigger issue.

In his speeches, Bernie talks about the fraud and the settlements to which the banks have been a part and points out that none of the top executives in the banks have faced prison in spite of the fact that their banks have paid huge settlements. The reason that the bankers get by with so many irresponsible schemes, unfair schemes that hurt our economy in general is that they are too big too fail -- not in the sense of having too much debt but in the sense of having too much economic power.

I am surprised that a very intelligent man like Barney Frank does not understand the difference.

I am not an economist and I get it. Why doesn't Barney Frank? Sorry to be snooty but it seems obvious to me.

[Meldread]

25. Campaigns are SUPPOSED to put forward policy proposals.

Most of the other campaigns, with the exception of Donald Trump, are putting forward "serious" white papers. (I put "serious" in quotes, because we are discussing Ted Cruz here as well. Ugh. As if any idea he puts forward is serious.)

It's true that those plans may be aspirational and may change once we begin debating it in Congress. That is just the nature of the beast. However, having an actual plan on the table means that we have something of substance to discuss. Right now, we have goals or slogans. That is not a plan. Especially with something so complicated, we are not even sure whether or not it is feasible, and a bad plan could seriously hurt the economy. So, of course, it makes sense for Bernie Sanders to put out a clear plan on how he intends to accomplish it.

At the very least, his campaign should be able to answer the question: how big is too big? He should be able to set some parameters so that we know what banks would be impacted, and he should explain why he has created those parameters. I would be satisfied with that minimal standard, even if we didn't get a full plan until he was in the White House. If Bernie Sanders can't answer that question, though, it is a serious problem.

Last night, we saw that Robert couldn't answer that question. His rebuttal to the question was to point out that it wasn't simply economic concerns, but also concerns surrounding their political influence. Okay, that's fine. However, if that is going to be an additional argument, then there has to be a proposal on the table on how to curtail their political influence as well. Then it must be explained why this is targeting just big banks, and not say the Oil/Natural Gas/Coal lobby as well.

[JDPriestly]

33. As I said above, we should have laws that limit the percentage of the financial market

that specific banks may dominate or control.

We need a lot more diversity in terms of investment strategies in our economy, and breaking up the banks in terms of the percentage of the market they dominate or control would help a lot.

Robert is right that it isn't just economic concerns, but my concerns are basically economic.

And when I look at Europe and the problems they have with their huge banks, I am all the more concerned about the consolidation of our banks.

[Meldread]

37. As I said above as well...

What percentage should it be? Then why is it set at that percentage and not at a higher / lower percentage?

I think that way of thinking about it is fine. However, it doesn't change the nature of the problem.

[JDPriestly]

40. That is an issue that the economists and banking experts in government should answer.

Bernie is running for president. He is not in charge of the White House yet.

Bernie could put out numbers but they would not be the final numbers.

Teddy Roosevelt figured out how to bust the trusts. Bernie in the White House would figure out how to break up the banks. It has to be done.

Maybe you are capable of figuring out the percentages. I am not. But the concept seems clear to me.

[Meldread]

42. I am not qualified to give that answer either, but that is why candidates have...

I am not qualified to give that answer either, but that is why candidates have economic advisors and economic teams. They exist to put together policy proposals. As a supporter of Bernie Sanders, that is what Robert Reich should be doing right now. He should be answering that question, helping Bernie put together a policy, and then making it public.

It's a horrible idea to wait until someone gets into office before they start putting out any policy proposals. This is why campaigns don't normally work that way.

[JDPriestly]

43. Bernie's answer to your statement:

"It is very frustrating that, because modern electoral politics is driven by technique, one needs more and more sophisticated "experts" in order to compete in the big league of congressional campaigns. But how far does one go in this direction? Was I elected to Congress as the first Independent in forty years so that I could have a slick Washington insider consultant who will tell me what to day and do? Not very likely. Am I going to be shaped and molded by a Washington insider? Not while I have a breath in my body."

Outsider in the White House, Bernie Sanders, page 12.

Bernie has a more collaborative approach to governing. I would expect him to work with first, the American people and then with government agencies and Congress to find the right approach to improving our economy.

Obama had his ideas about the healthcare reforms he wanted to make. The public option was part of his idea until maybe two weeks before Congress passed the bill. I know this because I was listening to a talk he made to his supporters at that time. He was in favor of a public option. But that public option did not materialize. So the fact that Bernie has not dotted the is and crossed the ts on his plan to break up big banks is of no concern to me. The best laid plans would not materialize or get implemented anyway.

Bernie's approach is not the same as Hillary's.

Barney Frank sounds like a grouchy old man. He was great in his youth, but oh, dear!!!

[Meldread]

45. First, Barney Frank has always been that way, there was never a time when he wasn't crotchety.

First, Barney Frank has always been that way, there was never a time when he wasn't crotchety. He's always been hostile and aggressive toward people who disagree with him. The vast majority of the time I find it completely off putting. However, regardless of the means of delivery and my personal feelings on it, that does not change the underlying arguments he makes. It is both possible to be a crotchety asshole, while at the same time making a coherent argument. It just means that fewer people are likely to listen, which is his problem.

Second, I don't disagree with you that plans change when they are in the process of being made into law. That is, as I said previously, the nature of the beast. However, let us not forget that both Obama and Hillary put forward specific healthcare plans, neither of which was Single Payer, Obama won the election, and then got a healthcare plan similar to what he was proposing put into law. Was it identical? Did he get everything that he wanted? No. That's the way things work. However, he did ultimately get a bill passed through congress and signed into law that followed the general road map he provided.

Third, I do not find that Bernie Sanders quote reassuring, and let me explain why. As you said previously, you are not an economist. Neither am I. We are not qualified to draw up a law regulating and breaking up large financial institutions. Bernie Sanders is not an economist either, and he is in the same position that we are in. This means one of two things.

1. He is going to have to find some experts who know how the system works to help him craft the plan that he wants to propose.

2. He is going to farm the general goal out to congress and tell them to figure it out and send him some legislation accomplishing the goal. Said members in congress will then promptly turn to the aforementioned loathed "Washington insiders" to help craft the legislation.

One of these two things is going to have to happen in order for there to be legislation. This is just a fact. At some point somewhere, someone is going to have to sit down and try and craft a plan around Bernie Sanders goal. However, what if we discover, in the process of coming up with that plan, that it will have unintended consequences--for example, what if the plan would harm the economy? The issue is that we don't know what we don't know, and we can't have a discussion until there is a plan.

Also, let's keep in mind here that this is what Donald Trump tells people. He tells people that he keeps his own council, and that he doesn't really get advice from experts. We cannot attack Donald Trump on this if Bernie Sanders is essentially making the same argument. The fact of the matter is we need people on our side, real liberals, who can help us craft policy proposals. There are numerous qualified individuals who are capable of helping him do this--Robert Reich, being an economist, could even be one of them. It is odd to take Robert Reich's support, and yet proclaim that he is a Washington Insider who is unqualified to help draft policy proposals. That is essentially the argument that you would be making here.

[JDPriestly]

54. I'm perhaps a foolish optimist, but I think that if I were in charge of one of those banks, and

I saw the kind of public response that Bernie is getting during this primary, I would start thinking about how I, the person in charge of a bank, could get my fellow bankers to do something to respond to the public outrage.

That is, in our system, the best way for a problem like this to be resolved -- with the cooperation of all who will be affected by the ultimate solution.

I think I would become pro-active and try to enter into a dialogue with those saying that the banks are too big.

Can we expect or demand such a rational response from bankers?

We shall see. But that is what, in the best of all possible worlds, would happen.

I think this problem is so obvious and so detrimental to our society that we will get a negotiated solution to it.

We don't and I don't think that Bernie does want a solution that harms our economy. We want a solution that strengthens the economy.

Bernie is a "we" person. That is why so many young people like him. (Not saying that off my hat, but rather from meeting with Bernie supporters and listening to them tell what they like about him.) Bernie is inclusive. This problem will not be resolved or approached by Bernie as us against them in the end. It will be a negotiating process with lots of pressure applied to the banks if they don't show themselves willing to help find a solution.

That's my guess. That is the difference between Bernie and the other candidates. Bernie was the mayor of Burlington, elected, re-elected, and has served in Congress representing Vermont since the early 1990s. He is very popular -- got 86% of the votes in the Vermont Democratic Primary. He has years and years of reaching across the aisle and negotiating. He will make sure that change happens this area, and he will do it without making permanent enemies or tearing down the economy.

That's my guess. I'm not worried about this really. Bernie is less of a dictatorial type than any of the other candidates. He likes working with people. That's his history.

Read his book. He is a humble, likeable kind of guy, and it comes through in his book.

Hey! Even the birds feel safe landing on Bernie's podium.

[Meldread]

56. Perhaps I am cynical then, because I don't imagine the bankers will negotiate.

Perhaps I am cynical then, because I don't imagine the bankers will negotiate. Even more than that, I don't trust them to negotiate in terms that do not give them leverage over the system and regulations. They want as much freedom as possible, and I want as much constraints as possible while not putting the overall economy in jeopardy. They may be part of an ultimate solution, but they will fight, kick, scream, and be dragged to said solution.

In the end, this is not about being dictatorial or not showing a willingness to work with your opponents. I agree with you that Sanders has shown a willingness to work with all sorts of people, even those on the really far right. However, that still doesn't mean he should show up without a plan. As voters we have a right to evaluate a candidates plans, so that we know if they are feasible or not. Granted, I understand that is not how most people vote. Most people vote based on who they like and trust, rather than on specific policy proposals. However, I am not that type of person. I want to have the ability to evaluate a candidates policy proposals, so that I can at least get a feel of where their head is at and how they might govern. Because, after all, at the end of the day that is what we are doing. We are electing someone to help govern the country. That means we need an idea of the things they'll actually attempt to do.

[JDPriestly]

44. Sorry to be such a pest, but this is from Sanders' book, Outsider in the White House, pages 19-20

"Just prior to the 1970 election, the Banking Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives published a report documenting the degree to which large banks in America controlled many major corporations, exerting enormous economic influence over our society. (Little would I, or anyone else in Vermont, have believed then that twenty years later I would be a member of that committee.) I lugged that report all over the state, quoting from it extensively.

"I used the publication to talk about the phenomenon of 'interlocking directorates,' showing how a handful of very powerful people were making decisions affecting one major sector of the economy after another. I contrasted the reality of corporate domination with the lives of ordinary working people --- laborers, farmers, shop owners --- who had little or no say over what happened to them on the job.

"Time after time, I pointed out that such disparity in the distribution of wealth and decision-making power was not just unfair economically, but that without economic democracy it was impossible to achieve genuine political democracy. The message could be reduced to a simple formula: wealth = power, lack of money = subservience. How could we change that? How could we create a truly democratic society?"

Young people are using the internet to do that.

Those who own our current mainstream media including the owners of Fox, MSNBC, etc. want to control the internet. Young people and those who use the internet a lot do not want corporate control of the internet content.

That is what this campaign season is about.

That is part of the issue with regard to the banks. As Bernie points out, the banks actually, through their investments and financial leverage control just about every sector of our economy including our media, not directly perhaps, but indirectly.

Bernie served on the banking committee. Barney Frank knows that. Barney was being a bit disingenuous in his remarks. Bernie knows what he is doing. He also knows better than to impose a lot of technical information on an interviewer form the Daily News.

Bernie knows what he is doing and saying with regard to the banks.

[pantsonfire]

9. Can they hold a public forum please......n/t

[renate]

21. Barney Frank was repellent

I'd admired the hell out of him in the past (I think he was the first openly gay member of Congress?--which took real guts back then). What has happened to him since he left Congress? He seems so smug and rude.

He really didn't do Hillary any favors at all in that piece.

[JudyM]

24. He was smug and rude when he was in congress, too. Speaking from my own personal experience.

[beaglelover]

27. When you use the word 'bankster' I immediately discount anything else you say.

Grow up.

[JDPriestly]

39. The banks and mortgage lending companies really did commit fraud in the time prior to the

crash of 2008. And maybe even after. That's why they paid the big settlements (which were by no means big enough; they were let off easy).

That's why Greece is in such difficulty.

I saw this with my own eyes, so I know it happened. You will have to take my word for it.

Not all banks and mortgage lenders committed fraud, but some, perhaps many, I would not know that, did.

One of the things they did was to fail to require proof of income from all home buyers.
When we bought our home, we had to substantiate the amount of our income for two years. That was back in 1988.

The banks were supposed to do that and did not. In that way alone, they were misrepresenting the creditworthiness of the borrowers from whom they did not obtain that documentation.

Once the banks began to lend money to borrowers whose incomes would not and could not cover the repayment costs of the loans, many more people were eligible to borrow ever larger sums for houses.

The next step was that housing prices began to rise. It was at that point, when a house on our street sold for many times what we had paid for house maybe 15 years earlier, that I cautioned my neighbor across the street and pointed out to her that housing prices cannot rise that fast when wages are stagnant as they were in our neighborhood at that time.

Remember that. There is a housing price bubble, and every banker should know this without any complex calculation, when the prices on houses rise at a rate much faster than the wages that are supposed to pay for the houses.

So, yes, the banks committed fraud as did some mortgage lenders and possibly others. And the proof is in the settlements of claims against the banks for various kinds of fraud including colluding to set certain interest rates.

There was an excellent article in the Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi about the fraud involved in setting certain basic international interest rates if you are interested in more information about this.

[snowy owl]

48. Thank you about Greece. Americans have little undestanding of the global meltdown.

We owe Greece.

[JDPriestly]

49. We owe it big time. I love Greece. Visited there when I was young.

[senz]

63. It's shorthand for bankers who behave like gangsters.

And it has nothing to do with maturity or lack thereof.

[beaglelover]

64. No shit, really? I had NO idea! And using the term shows what a child you are.

[senz]

65. I'm probably old enough to be your mother.

It's best to refrain from behaving in an overly insulting and obnoxious manner.

Try.

[senz]

50. Why do sell-outs always support Hillary?

She's a barometer for corruption and venality.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

52. barney sounded really confused

thom hartmann broke down the interview very well - barney was speaking gibberish

[CrowCityDem]

53. Frank is right, Reich/Sanders are wrong on this point:

The idea of the Dodd/Frank legislation was not to give the government the power to break up any institution that is big, but specifically the ones that are a risk to economy. As Frank was saying, if a massive bank is properly capitalized, it doesn't pose a systematic threat. Bernie is trying to use a very specific legal threshold to legislate what he thinks is the properly moral size of a bank.

[senz]

61. Barney Frank's language lines up with Hill's stated intention to disqualify Bernie.

He describes Bernie with words like "confused" and "forgetting," which is loaded language designed to make Bernie appear incompetent.

I've heard several commentators over the past two days suggesting that Bernie isn't well-informed and doesn't know what he's talking about.

This is a serious assault on Bernie's candidacy. I hope his campaign is aware of it.

[snowy owl]

67. Vanden Heuval vs. Rendell on Hayes: Dodd-Frank so watered down by lobbyists

it doesn't work. Is that how Barney got his lobbying job? Let his own legislation serve his new masters?

[senz]

68. Good point, snowy owl.

I wouldn't be surprised.

You probably know that Howard Dean is a lobbyist, too. Interesting how people sell out, become lobbyists, and join the Hill campaign.

Anyone who thinks she values the people of this country is fatally ignorant.

[snowy owl]

69. Gov. Rendell did not argue the point.