Who here can name the banks broken up under Frank Dodd as "too big to fail"?

[Recursion]

Anybody?

Is this actually something people care about?

Judging from this website most people think that has never happened
Which would be kind of amusing if this weren't primary season.

[monicaangela]

1. Crickets......

But people had better start to wake up:

European Parliamentarians Tour Hill Asking for Glass-Steagall

March 4, 2016 (EIRNS)—European Parliamentarians (MEPs) invited to the United States capital by EIR, spent March 1-3 in intensive meetings on Capitol Hill asking Members of Congress to break up Wall Street by restoring the Glass-Steagall Act, and give a push to widespread European constituency bank separation efforts.

MEPs Marco Zanni and Marco Valli met with 11 Members of the House from both parties—some Glass-Steagall sponsors and others on the fence—and told them


"we are standing before another global crisis of the financial system, and we need to act now in both the United States and Europe."

The two represent Italy’s Five Star Movement Party, now Italy’s second-largest, whose Delegates have put in five of the nine Glass-Steagall bills in the Italian Parliament. They were able to convey in strong detail the chaos, impoverishment, and banking crisis triggered since "bank bail-in" rules went into effect across the European Union at the end of 2015.

The MEPs got strong offers of collaboration from several Glass-Steagall sponsors; and were told by others about the fight riving the Democratic Party in particular, over Glass-Steagall vs. the Dodd-Frank Act. The primary election has intensified this fight in Congress as well.

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2016/160304_euro_glass_steagall.html

[pdsimdars]

2. That's a joke

Dodd Frank is almost useless. Nothing will happen until AFTER the next big crash and THEN they may do something. But it has to crash first.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. I can kind of answer

Last edited Tue Mar 8, 2016, 10:58 AM - Edit history (2)

Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo all absorbed failures – so they actually got a little bigger.

GS, MS and Citi are now a little bit smaller – and they should be.

All are better capitalized and prepared to save themselves now – they weren't in Q4 2008.

Check this out from March of Last year - it still holds true:

Fed Says 31 U.S. Banks Could Weather an Economic Storm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-05/fed-stress-tests-show-31-largest-banks-meet-capital-targets

If you go to the link - there's a good chart outlining their positions.

The Federal Reserve said all 31 big banks subjected to a stress test have sufficient capital to absorb losses during a sharp and prolonged economic downturn.

It’s the first time since the central bank started stress tests in 2009 that no firm fell below any of the main capital thresholds. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. surpassed the 8 percent minimum for total risk-based capital by 0.1 percentage point, potentially restricting its room to return capital to shareholders.

The annual tests, using hypothetical scenarios that are not forecasts, are the cornerstone of the Fed’s efforts to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis and to gauge the ability of banks to withstand economic turmoil.

The largest U.S.-based banks “continue to build their capital levels and to strengthen their ability to lend to households and businesses during a period marked by severe recession and financial market volatility,” the Fed said in a statement Thursday.

The global banks are my chief concern. That's why I'd like to see regulations on individuals and yes - even businesses (banks) if we were to re implement G.S. and hold foreign entities responsible. Example - a freight ship company operating in North Africa that shipped Iran sanctioned goods to Iran - might not ever operate in the US. However, if you are a US based business or citizen - you cannot export to that freight ship company or send them money for services.

They are on the BIS list. If they engaged in activities on behalf of ISIS or a Drug Kingpin - they would be on OFAC. We can't undo what has been done - but we can say -

There are other ways to fuck with America than blowing up bridges and if you do this - we won't do business with you as a country anymore. It will be forbidden.

And here's how this works if you are engaged in Import/Export Compliance - let's say an American citizen on the BIS list goes abroad and asks me to ship them something - I'm PERSONALLY liable - not my company. Let's hold senior managers in the banking industry to the same standards that every other person in other types of industry are. They aren't 'special' and ignorance shouldn't be allowed to be used as an excuse.

[Recursion]

5. Bingo

JAG as always got it right.

Complex problems rarely admit of simple solutions.

[Hortensis]

14. Thanks for the post, JAG. Enjoyed reading.

[el_bryanto]

4. Why do you insist on defending Wall Street Investment Banks? I don't really understand that.

In 2008 when it became clear that the housing market was going south, and the CDOs and Synthetic CDOs were going to be worthless, Wall Street Banks suddenly became unable to set a value on those securities, until they had protected themselves as much as possible, while continuing to pretend that such investments were solid. They got to keep most of their money, and those who took shots got bailed out.

In the meantime, the entities to whom they had marketed these products, state and local governments, retirement plans, school boards and the like, finally woke up one day to the fact that these AAA rated securities were suddenly worthless. So we paid for it coming and going.

Now breaking up the banks may not have been the best idea; but don't you want to hold them responsible at all for the genuine harm they did to our country? Don't you want to see such practices curtailed and regulated?

Bryant

[Recursion]

6. Yeah, why are you so intent on defending them?

It's kind of mysterious to me.

[el_bryanto]

7. Good comeback. You really shut me down. nt

[Recursion]

8. Well you seem to oppose the government taking their money when they get into trouble

The question for me is "why?" Are their profits sacred to you or something?

[el_bryanto]

10. You can't just make up stuff - well obviously you can. But that's total bullshit to suggest

that. I have never said anything even close to that.

Bryant

[Recursion]

12. You are arguing against a program that involved the government taking money from banks

to secure their financial future. Again, my question is "why?" Why are banks' profits so sacred to you?

[el_bryanto]

16. Jesus - you'll say anything won't you?

You actually believe the TARP program was some sort of punishment? It was a bailout - getting them through a mess they caused. The fact that they had to pay back the bailout doesn't change the essential contours of the deal.

Bryant

[Recursion]

18. It cost the banks money and made the government money

Do you not actually know that?

[el_bryanto]

22. Whatever. I think it's clear who wants to hold Wall Street accountable, your deceptions

notwithstanding.

Bryant

[islandmkl]

27. neither of those two entities were the ones who paid for the bailout...

one gave someone else's money and one took it...

who was 'someone else'?...that would be the American taxpayers...

I can't decide between using the word obtuse or obfuscation when commenting on your posts...

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Here's what I think. I think you should say what you mean instead of playing passive aggressive

question time games. If you feel you have knowledge to share, you should share it, not play games with it if you think it it is important information. The objective you demonstrate is not the sharing of knowledge or of your opinion but of choosing off to fight.
I just find direct address to be so much more honest and respectful not only of the readers but of the subject matter. This morning I have read two threads from you allegedly about your great insights about the bailout both of which are just attacks upon unseen parties that do not agree with you. I am not sure what you think, nor what you know about the bailout, what I see is that you think poorly of others and very highly of yourself and I already knew that. Of course the writing of clear and informative posts is much harder than baiting a hook with a word worm.....

I read for objective. Your objective is not to my liking and seems to have less than nothing to do with the ostensible subject matter....

[Recursion]

13. I think the US Government took billions from the banks through TARP

For that matter, I don't "think" that, I actually know it's true.

Why alleged "progressives" are against that is beyond me.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. I think that last line is your entire reason for writing which is why you can't make a full and

snark free answer.

I think speaking one's own mind is superior to playing 'Let me ask you trick questions while insulting you'.

[Recursion]

28. Sure, whatever

Defend the huge banks' profits all you want. The reason for your doing that is opaque to me, but it's where we are

[Hortensis]

15. It made me realize I no longer could answer.

Did you by any chance have a moment of realization? I'm not talking about refutation leaping to your fingers, but insight into ignorance?

All of this is so complex that there are few periods when I actually remember enough to explain some part of to someone else. I have to go refresh and expand my knowledge.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. You fail to understand my point. But that's ok. You have an agenda same as the OP has.....

So you also fail to express your own mind and instead make pot shots and insults at me, personally. It's not all that impressive. Tenacious, but not effective.

[Hortensis]

23. Did you know that Sen. Barney Frank was named

by a Nobel Prize-winning economist as only one of three representatives in DC he felt really understood economics?

I do not remember the other two reps, but neither was Bernie Sanders. Just one of those little things you can drop into your next conversation on macroeconomics.

[delrem]

24. It's a HRC supporter backing a "I support Bernie but..." poster.

HRC flag tag-teaming with false flag.
False flag is of course passive-aggressive, it's the default modus operandi.

It's HRC's campaign in a nutshell.

[JustAnotherGen]

9. I will answer

Yes I do -

Don't you want to see such practices curtailed and regulated?

What if - we outlawed Derivatives?

I'm serious - what's the worst thing that could happen?

That means the Hedgie in Dublin Ireland at Davy IE has to go f8ck himself if it touches US based banks or International Banks doing business in the US? Just one idea.

When I say reimplement Glass Steagall - we shouldn't stop there.

Look - I can personally go to jail if we ship 10 iPads to say - Thomas Butler (looking him up and google with bubonic plague) while he's on vacation in Barbados. Hold bankers to the exact same standards we hold people who engage in Import/Export activities - the framework is there. Most of the regulations even sit under Secretary of Treasury and the rest CBP/Homeland Security. Treat people who engage in these activities like human trafficking drug kingpins or ISIS - and ANYONE who does business with them should be the same.

To me - strict punishments going forward are something that the vast majority of Americans - both sides of the aisle - across the spectrum of their respective ideology agree with. It's the right thing to do - we have 'good starts' - but it needs to get done.

I feel the same way about this as monetizing green energy and environmental conscious business. Let's get it done because only morons and idiots don't believe it needs to get done. Hopefully those people will all move to Somalia when Trump doesn't win so we can make 'America Great' FOR ONCE without them.

[Recursion]

21. Wow, that's radical

Can you say more? I'm open to the idea.

[NCTraveler]

19. Great op.

In less than an hour there are a couple of replies we should all read.

[JRLeft]

25. Dodd-Frank has no teeth. The fact she props it up tells me she has no intention to fix the banking.

[Recursion]

26. So can you name the banks broken up under its auspices?

I'll tell you the number is non-zero. Can you name them?

Is this actually an issue you care about?