2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFortune: President Bernie Sanders: Bad for bankers, perhaps not so bad for banks
By Ben Geier - OCTOBER 21, 2015, 2:22 PM EDT
Sanders plan to cap the size of any given bank would be bad for those at the top. But it might not be terrible news for the industry as a whole.
One year ago, the idea of a Bernie Sanders presidency was laughable. Hillary Clinton may not be the perfect candidate, the thinking it went, but there was no way Democrats would vote for a septuagenarian, democratic-socialist, Independent Senator from Vermont; one who honeymooned in the Soviet Union and offered support for the socialist Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the 1980s. There was no way that guy had any chance to be president, right?
Wrong.
As of the most recent polls, the Real Clear Politics average has Sanders polling at 25% nationally. Yes, thats nearly 20 points behind Clinton, but for a candidate with views that are on the fringe of American politics, it is remarkable. Yes, it is still a long shot, but the American political world now has to reckon with the fact that a Sanders administration is possible.
If theres one group that is likely shaking at the thought of a President Sanders, its the financial sector.
The biggest impact would be Jamie Dimons and Lloyd Blankfeins bonus, said Dennis Kelleher, founder of non-partisan advocacy group Better Markets. And that is not a net loss to the country...
Full article:
http://fortune.com/2015/10/21/bernie-sanders-bankers-banks/
PatrickforO
(14,569 posts)the line, "but for a candidate with views that are on the fringe of American politics..."
Over 50% of Americans agree with every single position Bernie is campaigning on.
But, of course, Fortune has to take the 'fringe' stance because it is a huge, corporate-owned propaganda organ that makes its money spewing out what is basically the corporate line.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)the good old days almost every town had their own bank. And that bank was a real part of the economy of those towns. The banker knew the people they were giving loans to and the community prospered. And the people knew the banker. They went to church with him and his family.
Now that of course was when 2% of the population was urban and the rest were rural. So it would not necessarily work the same way but they could still be community related banks. Bankers that were concerned about the community they were in.