Is Bernie Bro over the edge?

[Harry Bosch]

Powerful article on Bernie. There's been something about Bernie that has bothered from day one. I'm not white and don't understand the love affair with him. I think that Paul Krugman perfectly captures my hesitation in embracing "Bernie Bro". According to Krugman, Bernie tends to go for easy solutions over hard thinking (exactly how I feel about Trump as well!). For example, Bernie thinks that breaking up the big banks will prevent future economic collapse. BS. Too big to fail didn't cause the 2008 crash. Most of the banks that wrote subprime loans were smaller non-bank entities. And most of them did fail.

I like the energy that Bernie brings. I think that at heart he's a good person. I think that he will rally around Clinton once he's eliminated. But I also think that he's an empty suit who doesn't have a clue on how to run the country. Your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html?_r=0

 

[ZiprHead]

You're right that the big banks didn't write those subprime loans, but they did buy them and mix them with the good ones and resell them as good.

If a bank is too big to fail, it should be too big to insure.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I like the energy that Bernie brings. I think that at heart he's a good person. I think that he will rally around Clinton once he's eliminated. But I also think that he's an empty suit who doesn't have a clue on how to run the country. Your thoughts?

I think voting properly on the Iraq War and the USA PATRIOT Act and decades of experience in office qualifies him to know how to run the country.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I like the energy that Bernie brings. I think that at heart he's a good person. I think that he will rally around Clinton once he's eliminated. But I also think that he's an empty suit who doesn't have a clue on how to run the country. Your thoughts?

I think voting properly on the Iraq War and the USA PATRIOT Act and decades of experience in office qualifies him to know how to run the country.

I didn't say that he isn't qualified. I don't think that he has a great grasp of complicated issues. Trump also claims that he was against the Iraq war, does that make a great candidate?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think voting properly on the Iraq War and the USA PATRIOT Act and decades of experience in office qualifies him to know how to run the country.

I didn't say that he isn't qualified.

Yes, you did. You wrote that he "doesn't have a clue on how to run the country" and that is equivalent to not being competent (or qualified) for the job.

I don't think that he has a great grasp of complicated issues.

Since he actually understood complicated issues like the USA PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War, he does have a great grasp of at least some complicated issues, where his opponent did not.

Trump also claims that he was against the Iraq war, does that make a great candidate?

I did not say that having the correct position on a single issue is what makes someone a great candidate. I wrote that A, B, and C collectively are good evidence that he can do the job. Trump does not have great positions on complicated issues and decades of experience in politics collectively demonstrating he is qualified.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I didn't say that he isn't qualified.

Yes, you did. You wrote that he "doesn't have a clue on how to run the country" and that is equivalent to not being competent (or qualified) for the job.

I don't think that he has a great grasp of complicated issues.

Since he actually understood complicated issues like the USA PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War, he does have a great grasp of at least some complicated issues, where his opponent did not.

Trump also claims that he was against the Iraq war, does that make a great candidate?

I did not say that having the correct position on a single issue is what makes someone a great candidate. I wrote that A, B, and C collectively are good evidence that he can do the job. Trump does not have great positions on complicated issues and decades of experience in politics collectively demonstrating he is qualified.

It's interesting that you assume that any criticism of Bernie is similar to saying that he is qualified. Is being qualified the only criteria when deciding a president? For the third time, I think that Bernie is qualified. I just don't think that he is all that impressive when it comes to the issues.

 

[J842P]

Powerful article on Bernie. There's been something about Bernie that has bothered from day one. I'm not white and don't understand the love affair with him. I think that Paul Krugman perfectly captures my hesitation in embracing "Bernie Bro". According to Krugman, Bernie tends to go for easy solutions over hard thinking (exactly how I feel about Trump as well!). For example, Bernie thinks that breaking up the big banks will prevent future economic collapse. BS. Too big to fail didn't cause the 2008 crash. Most of the banks that wrote subprime loans were smaller non-bank entities. And most of them did fail.

I like the energy that Bernie brings. I think that at heart he's a good person. I think that he will rally around Clinton once he's eliminated. But I also think that he's an empty suit who doesn't have a clue on how to run the country. Your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html?_r=0

Sanders has never claimed that breaking up the banks would have prevented the collapse, as Krugman here tries to imply. He has claimed that the banks being "too big to fail" makes it so that if another economic situation arises, the government is forced to bail them out. He wants to prevent that situation. Do you agree or not that it is a bad situation for a bank to be so large that it's failure would necessitate a bailout?

 

[Horatio Parker]

The idea behind breaking up the banks, as I understand it, is to separate speculative finance from the real economy. So speculative bubbles don't do so much damage. As it is, the banks are having their cake and eating it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Powerful article on Bernie. There's been something about Bernie that has bothered from day one. I'm not white and don't understand the love affair with him. I think that Paul Krugman perfectly captures my hesitation in embracing "Bernie Bro". According to Krugman, Bernie tends to go for easy solutions over hard thinking (exactly how I feel about Trump as well!). For example, Bernie thinks that breaking up the big banks will prevent future economic collapse. BS. Too big to fail didn't cause the 2008 crash. Most of the banks that wrote subprime loans were smaller non-bank entities. And most of them did fail.

I like the energy that Bernie brings. I think that at heart he's a good person. I think that he will rally around Clinton once he's eliminated. But I also think that he's an empty suit who doesn't have a clue on how to run the country. Your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html?_r=0

It isn't that breaking up Big Banks et al cures all ills. It just stops the problem of them failing and getting a bailout from the tax payer because to allow them to fail has such bad consequences. This may encourage some Big Banks to do risky things knowing that they are too big to allow to fail. Moral hazard.
But what goes along with ending too big to fail is regulating hazardous behavior. For an egregarious example of a law that needs changing was a provision Sen. Phil Gramm inserted into a bill making regulation of derivatives out of bounds for government regulatory agencies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/economy/17gramm.html

This charge against Sanders is not exactly competent. The idea that regulation is bad should have died a decent death with the 2008 economic meltdown. What we need is more regulation of dangerous activities. I really would like to see a government agency created, tasked to look at such incipient problems and heading them off rather than the old head-in-the-sand attitude that allowed the meltdown to roll on until it looked like we might be going into a possible depression. I think we could trust sanders to try something along this line. I don't see anything like this from the GOP side of the aisle.

 

[Angry Floof]

I'm lost in economic discussions, but here is another view that may be useful:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-financial-crisis_us_57080537e4b063f854dfa21a

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

he's an empty suit who doesn't have a clue on how to run the country.

doesn't have a clue
doesn't have a clue
doesn't have a clue
doesn't have a clue

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Powerful article on Bernie. There's been something about Bernie that has bothered from day one. I'm not white and don't understand the love affair with him. I think that Paul Krugman perfectly captures my hesitation in embracing "Bernie Bro". According to Krugman, Bernie tends to go for easy solutions over hard thinking (exactly how I feel about Trump as well!). For example, Bernie thinks that breaking up the big banks will prevent future economic collapse. BS. Too big to fail didn't cause the 2008 crash. Most of the banks that wrote subprime loans were smaller non-bank entities. And most of them did fail.

I like the energy that Bernie brings. I think that at heart he's a good person. I think that he will rally around Clinton once he's eliminated. But I also think that he's an empty suit who doesn't have a clue on how to run the country. Your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html?_r=0

Where and when did Sanders say "that breaking up the big banks will prevent future economic collapse?"

I think if Clinton wins the nomination, Sanders won't stand in her way and he will ask for voters to support her, but I don't see him "rallying around" Clinton.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Powerful article on Bernie. There's been something about Bernie that has bothered from day one. I'm not white and don't understand the love affair with him. I think that Paul Krugman perfectly captures my hesitation in embracing "Bernie Bro". According to Krugman, Bernie tends to go for easy solutions over hard thinking (exactly how I feel about Trump as well!). For example, Bernie thinks that breaking up the big banks will prevent future economic collapse. BS. Too big to fail didn't cause the 2008 crash. Most of the banks that wrote subprime loans were smaller non-bank entities. And most of them did fail.

I like the energy that Bernie brings. I think that at heart he's a good person. I think that he will rally around Clinton once he's eliminated. But I also think that he's an empty suit who doesn't have a clue on how to run the country. Your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html?_r=0

Two things:

1) "Too big to fail" DID, in fact, contribute to the subprime mortgage crisis. It wasn't so much that the big banks themselves CAUSED the problem, it's that they had grown to a size where their instability could potentially topple the entire economy. This continues to be a problem even in more stable times, where regulators are hesitant to really punish big banks that are caught performing gross malfeasance (I'm lookin at you, HSBC) for fear of triggering another financial crisis.

2) More interestingly, Bernie's "too big to fail" spiel is based on laws that ALREADY EXIST but that the banks have convinced the government not to enforce. Anti-trust legislation exists for a REASON. And the enormous concentration of economic power in the hands of a few enormous banks isn't just an economic liability, it's a potential threat to our entire democracy.

- - - Updated - - -

The idea behind breaking up the banks, as I understand it, is to separate speculative finance from the real economy. So speculative bubbles don't do so much damage. As it is, the banks are having their cake and eating it.

Exactly this.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The idea behind breaking up the banks, as I understand it, is to separate speculative finance from the real economy. So speculative bubbles don't do so much damage. As it is, the banks are having their cake and eating it.

Exactly this.

And currently they are only required to carry a higher cash reserve, I believe. To what extend that may protect the taxpayer for the next time remains to be seen.

 

[untermensche]

Who knows what Krugman's problem with Bernie is? But his true political colors show. Krugman prefers a moderate Republican like Clinton to somebody mildly left of center like Sanders.

Even Krugman Doesn't Agree With Krugman's Sanders Takedown

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-krugman-is-wrong-about-the-financial-crisis_us_57080537e4b063f854dfa21a

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The idea behind breaking up the banks, as I understand it, is to separate speculative finance from the real economy. So speculative bubbles don't do so much damage. As it is, the banks are having their cake and eating it.

Yeah. I don't think breaking up ala Ma Bell is the right answer. Rather, declare that as of say 1/1/17 they can either be a bank or a speculative finance company, not both. Let them decide how to handle it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) "Too big to fail" DID, in fact, contribute to the subprime mortgage crisis. It wasn't so much that the big banks themselves CAUSED the problem, it's that they had grown to a size where their instability could potentially topple the entire economy. This continues to be a problem even in more stable times, where regulators are hesitant to really punish big banks that are caught performing gross malfeasance (I'm lookin at you, HSBC) for fear of triggering another financial crisis.

They should punish the to-big-to-fail companies with a fine in stock rather than cash. The regulators sell the stock over a period of time and get money, the shareholders are punished--which will make them more careful in the future.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I like the energy that Bernie brings. I think that at heart he's a good person.

Well then you at least understand partly why people find Sanders appealing.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The idea behind breaking up the banks, as I understand it, is to separate speculative finance from the real economy. So speculative bubbles don't do so much damage. As it is, the banks are having their cake and eating it.

Yeah. I don't think breaking up ala Ma Bell is the right answer. Rather, declare that as of say 1/1/17 they can either be a bank or a speculative finance company, not both. Let them decide how to handle it.

That's pretty much what breaking them up would actually entail. Essentially, regulators would declare that the bank is doing too many things in too many places and it must decide to either shut down those operations or spin them off into separate companies.

 

[Frikki]

1) "Too big to fail" DID, in fact, contribute to the subprime mortgage crisis. It wasn't so much that the big banks themselves CAUSED the problem, it's that they had grown to a size where their instability could potentially topple the entire economy. This continues to be a problem even in more stable times, where regulators are hesitant to really punish big banks that are caught performing gross malfeasance (I'm lookin at you, HSBC) for fear of triggering another financial crisis.

They should punish the to-big-to-fail companies with a fine in stock rather than cash. The regulators sell the stock over a period of time and get money, the shareholders are punished--which will make them more careful in the future.

That is a great idea.