Really what does a broken up big bank look like?

[upaloopa]

How does that work. You get a bully pulpit and tell Congress to pass a law breaking up big banks? They comply right?
Is there a study of what the outcome might be or do we just take an axe and break them up because they always screw us over.
Does anyone any where have an answer as to how to do it and what the outcome will be?
If I have a major gripe with Bernie it is this. I don't know what the hell he is going to do how he is going to do it and what the outcome will be.
Sure we can say shit like we will all benefit but I want a real answer from people who study these things.
Well maybe we kick the bums out and figure it out later.
As in the candidate "what do we do now"

[JaneyVee]

1. Bear Stearns.

[bobalew]

3. We Broke up the telecoms. we broke up the Oil Companies.

These are/ were just as large institutions. We make State Banks out of the local in-state Branches, and disconnect them. The local money stays, the management gets fired at the National & International level.

[upaloopa]

6. We are still getting screwed by mergers

We have two or three providers just line before.

[ibegurpard]

19. That's because we don't fund our regulatory agencies

And our government officials' campaigns are funded by the very companies they are supposed to be regulating.

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. A broken up big bank would be several smaller banks, but according some quick research

it appears the anti-trust laws are not applicable.

It is like taking a Hershey bar and breaking it up into the smaller bite size pieces.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027261604

[Eric J in MN]

4. Merrill Lynch is an investment bank.

Bank of America is a savings bank.

Merrill Lynch was its own company since 1914. In 2008, it was purchased by Bank of America, which still owns it.

If Glass-Steagall were restored, then Merrill Lynch would be its own company, again. Glass-Steagall requires a separation between savings banks and investment banks.

[Armstead]

5. Here's the problem shown graphically. If you think this is healthy there's nothing to say

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I sort of think a diverse and truly competative economy is preferable to the formaiton of monopolies and oligarchies.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/bank-merger-history

[upaloopa]

7. You are just saying you like it

We need plans and what the outcome will be.
You are like saying you want beer in the drinking fountains

[Armstead]

8. I am just saying I like it?

Yes, I much prefer to have smaller banks that are more accountable, offer consumers more choice, dilute the risks that bad actors in that sector might cause -- and which don't suck up and concentrate the wealth of the nation into a few hands.

[artislife]

9. Didn't you like the other thread that was just started?

That's what I want to know

[artislife]

10. Okay I will show you what it looks like

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Yes best to just keep things as they are. What could possibly go wrong?

No you don't use an ax.

First you re-instate glass-steagall. Now all the huge wall street bank/hedgefund/brokerage firm monsters have to divide into a commercial banking entity and an investment/speculation entity. This firewall should never have been taken down.

Second pass legislation breaking up national banks considered "too big" into regional entities.

By the way Clinton is also in favor of breaking up these "banks". Were you aware of that?

Hillary Clinton unveiled a plan that aims to tackle excessive risk-taking in the financial sector and calls for breaking up too-big-to-fail banks.

The proposal, laid out Thursday, would impose a risk fee on financial firms "that are too large and too risky to manage" and require them to reorganize, downsize or break apart, the Democratic presidential hopeful said.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/08/clinton-calls-for-breaking-up-too-big-to-fail-banks-as-part-of-wall-street-plan.html

Still against it?

[floriduck]

12. Some people are just incapable of thinking

creatively. The chart showing the mergers can just as easily be reversed so stock brokers, money managers, insurance executives work within their own industry and not part of a mega-financial institution. It's the lack of competition that resulted in charges and fees we see today. I use a credit union because I refuse to do business with the JP Morgan, Chase and B of As of the world. My checking account is free and I can use any credit union ATM without fees.

[upaloopa]

13. I use credit union for the same reasons

How are we supposed to vote for Bernie's plan if he doesn't have a plan?
He has platitudes. No plans.

[floriduck]

14. I haven't heard an actual "plan"

from any candidate, including whomever yours is. In fact some candidates can't even take a position and stay with it. At least Bernie is advocating for the same things today, he did 20 years ago. Absolutely no other person can say that. So I'd back someone consistent in positions on issues that I agree with.

[upaloopa]

15. I don't get the reason advocating something for 20 or 40

years is worth anything. We need to take care of the very near future. A good plan today is just as worthy as a good an 40 years ago.

[floriduck]

16. Then I guess you won't need to vote.

That's because you want details that zero candidates will provide you between now and November 2016. The best you'll get is an idea of each person's priorities. And some candidates will change their priorities just for more votes. Be very cautious of those people.

[upaloopa]

17. You are very wrong

Hillary isn't blowing smoke up people's asses even if you don't think so.

[floriduck]

18. I thought this discussion was about

the candidate's plans. Go back and reread our exchanges. Now you want to jump straight to Hillary and her smoking habit? You seem very confused in general and stubborn specifically. I have no intention of trying to change your mind. But don't make excuses for why you will or won't vote for a particular candidate. Just own your decision and let others own theirs. Good bye and good luck.