Volcker: Obama plans maintain 'too big to fail' (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Miller]

No one, not even Obama, is going to go up against the international banking, monetary, financial system (whatever you want to call it). Money and its borrowing/lending/interest properties that it posses is the heart of the global economy, and the instiutions that channel its ebb and flow are the arteries of the system.

Sure we'll see occasional lip service by people in government (from both parties), they'll take away some salaries from some management people for some companies, but over all, nothing will change.

 

[jpcdolphan]

...

Yes, I've opposed Obama beginning early in the primaries. I felt at the time that he was an extreme leftist, that he was an immature politician, I've called him (during the primaries, it no longer applies as he has to make a stand now) a blank canvess. And now, 9 months into his Presidency, I stand behind each and every one of those criticisms. I didn't mention on the EE board that I felt he was corrupt because I was trying to be kind, and frankly I didn't have, nor did I want to spend time tracking down a bunch of "evidence". I figured it would turn up in the wash once he got elected. Now I suppose the evidence points to Chicago-styled corruption as well, it began with the funneling of money to the Unions in the Chrysler takeover. I make no apologies whatsoever, in fact, I feel quite vindicated in my initial beliefs. I've been pretty much spot-on in my assessment of Obama. Harsh, maybe. Accurate, yes.

That's one hell of a jump. Obama is "corrupt" because he's not stopping Congress (who actually, you know, makes the laws) from refusing to protect certain industries in a financial crisis?

Even Volcker agrees with most of Obama's ideas in the matter. From your own initial quote.

Volcker said he does not differ with the administration on most of its proposals, and takes "as a given" that banks will be bailed out in times of crisis.

From a strictly philosophical point of view, what makes banks so special?

"Important to the broader economy" and "too big to fail" isn't industry specific, is it? If you agree with Volcker, then you automatically concede that, yes, some companies should be allowed to operate under those auspices.

Unless, of course, you want government regulations to dictate how big any company is allowed to get.

Obama was suppose to bring the country together. What a load of pure, unadulterated BS.

Yep, that one's all on Barry O. Everybody is trying to work with him and bring partisan politics to an end, but he's just throwing those overtures back in their faces.

Right, Congressman Wilson?

Just for laughs, though, besides Free Ice Cream Fridays or a Congressional resolution extolling the awesomeness of breathing air, what policy or potential policy is out there that a vast majority of the public and/or politicians would agree on?

 

[blackadder]

No one, not even Obama, is going to go up against the international banking, monetary, financial system (whatever you want to call it). Money and its borrowing/lending/interest properties that it posses is the heart of the global economy, and the instiutions that channel its ebb and flow are the arteries of the system.

Sure we'll see occasional lip service by people in government (from both parties), they'll take away some salaries from some management people for some companies, but over all, nothing will change.

That's why it's called the oligarchy.

The oligarchy is smart, that's why they get people like Bill Clinton, W and Obama to front for them.

 

[Superfan]

Once again Lawyers prove they don't understand the economy.

 

[Crzycjunx76]

The only bailouts that should ever have occurred is if a company was going to fail completely, and even then the only thing that should have been "bailed out" was whatever debt or benefits they had left to pay to other entities or their employees after all their assets had been liquidated and sold off. In the case of companies that were in danger of having to severely downsize but never really in danger of failing (GM) no bailout at all should have occurred... if they cannot streamline themselves and compete then they should fail.

 

[blackadder]

The only bailouts that should ever have occurred is if a company was going to fail completely, and even then the only thing that should have been "bailed out" was whatever debt or benefits they had left to pay to other entities or their employees after all their assets had been liquidated and sold off. In the case of companies that were in danger of having to severely downsize but never really in danger of failing (GM) no bailout at all should have occurred... if they cannot streamline themselves and compete then they should fail.

That would be crazy.

That would be...capitalism.

Seriously, this is all due to money in the political system. You only have to get big and successful once. And once you do, you make sure you buy some politicians. Then, as your business performance declines, as you become complacent, you can substitute risk and performance with legislation that transfers tax payer wealth into your hands.