Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
19. The problem this article is discussing is that our 6 big banks
Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:22 AM
Apr 2016

should be broken up into smaller banks (like they used to be) because they are "too big to fail". But the issue is not that they are big but that being big they are a danger to the world economy.

When one fails they run a huge risk of pulling the others down with them. That is where we were at in 2008. It was vitally necessary for the bailout because if we had not the world economy would have crashed and we would have found ourselves in another Great Depression.

Nothing has been done to protect us from that. The only thing that can be done is bring back Glass-Steagall to protect the accounts of individuals and then to return to smaller banks. It does not mean that a bank will not fail but if it does they will not be big enough to bring down the entire world economy.

I think the big banks do not like this idea because it has to do with the lose of power and nothing to do with the lose of money they hold.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Oh, Bernie doesn't know what he's talking about! Human101948 Apr 2016 #1
Yep. Lot of bullshit being spread in that thread. /nt think Apr 2016 #2
Not visionary. Sensible, and we've done it before. Hortensis Apr 2016 #10
Your links argue that Bernie's ideas are not as radical as they may originally seem beastie boy Apr 2016 #14
History provides us with wisdom, Grasshopper! Human101948 Apr 2016 #15
Roosevelt's economic advisers were overwhelmingly hardcore Keynesians. beastie boy Apr 2016 #16
Some were Keynesians some were not... Human101948 Apr 2016 #20
Roosevelt was not a Keynesian when he ran. But most of his economic advisers were beastie boy Apr 2016 #23
Why does he keep calling it a mistake? JustAnotherGen Apr 2016 #3
I would assume if he accused the banks of direct malfeasance he wouldn't be in his current position think Apr 2016 #4
Yeah - either that or after he's done with this job JustAnotherGen Apr 2016 #7
Spot on :) The Teller Window. Now that's funny think Apr 2016 #8
Hillary is not going to like this... Herman4747 Apr 2016 #5
Hillary's refusal to support Glass Steagall speaks volumes on where she stands in regards to think Apr 2016 #6
Wonder what's so amusing between those two? SammyWinstonJack Apr 2016 #21
This is from 2013 the Dallas Fed.......................warning signs are everywhere............ turbinetree Apr 2016 #9
I've never seen this before. And this is by the president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank think Apr 2016 #11
The problem this article is discussing is that our 6 big banks jwirr Apr 2016 #19
Uh oh. How long before he wakes up with a horse head in his bed? marmar Apr 2016 #12
Hopefully there will be no horsing around.... think Apr 2016 #13
Kick and R BeanMusical Apr 2016 #17
Don't, says the Establishment. n/t Orsino Apr 2016 #18
The problem the bailout made worse... freebrew Apr 2016 #22
^ Wilms Apr 2016 #24
and that's Kashkari, the Republican who ran the stupidest campaign in California history MisterP Apr 2016 #25
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Break up the banks, says ...»Reply #19