Skip to main content

View Diary: This week in the War on Workers: This cartoon about taxing the rich outraged Rush Limbaugh (108 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  shattering them could eliminate the "big"... with (5+ / 0-)

    fewer job losses -- and we would end up with some of the competition restored that we had before the "too big" consolidation frenzy.

    We don't necessarily need to choose between eliminating the dangerous overlords and preserving jobs.

    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

    by Murphoney on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:29:48 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Breaking them up? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DSPS owl

      Perhaps.  But it's really not the "big" that is the problem.  Banks need to be strong and resilient -- in addition, their diversification is a more efficient business model (at least theoretically).  It's not even the consolidation of traditional and investment banking that's the problem as much as all the proprietary trading and imaginary derivatives channeled in and out of the casinos on Wall Street.  More oversight is needed, which is one of the main reasons I'm glad to see Sen (elect) Warren on the Banking Committee.

      Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

      by winsock on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:04:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What Banks need is competition (5+ / 0-)

        So how about some real competition from a public bank offering a full range of services.

        It's our money that is deposited, and used for investments and loans, so why can we not lend money to ourselves from a bank that we own?

        Who knows, it might be successful and some of those commercial banks that pay outrageous salaries and bonuses, while playing fast and loose with our investments might not be able to compete.

        Good!

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        by twigg on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:09:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Twigg's Credit Union (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          twigg, CA wildwoman, varro

          Hey, why not?  I eschew the megabanks anyway because I find their customer service generally sucks.  I'd rather deal with smaller, community banks for this reason.  But again, from a consumer standpoint, it's not so much the size of the bank as it is the service, convenience, reliability and, of course, the rates and fees.  Bring it!

          Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

          by winsock on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:30:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Credit unions can vary.... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            winsock, twigg

            ....but the ones I've seen are more responsive than script-reliant large banks.

            One of the excuses people use to stay with big banks is travel - yet most credit unions are in networks that allow you to withdraw money at most other credit unions, at 7-11s, or simply by asking for change back at a store.

            9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

            by varro on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:30:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  North Dakota has a bank owned by the people of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          twigg

          the state via state government.  Government owned banks were advocated by the Populists in the 1890s and promoted in their party platform. The Bank of North Dakota was created in 1919 to promote agriculture, commerce and industry in the state; and as of 2009, according to the article linked below, in the previous 10-12 years the bank generated "a third of a billion dollars" for North Dakota's general fund.

          It is time to go on the offensive so Corporatist interests are on their heels for a change.  I assume those states with the right of initiative and referendum could force state legislators to act on a state-owned bank more easily.

          http://www.motherjones.com/...
           

          Robber Baron "ReTHUGisms": John D. Rockefeller -"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets"; Jay Gould -"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

          by ranton on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:36:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's not so much that "big" isn't a problem, it's (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        winsock

        that downsizing doesn't address any problem that "too big to fail" references.

        When you drew a direct size correlation between "too big to fail" and "downsizing":

        While we decry "too-big-to-fail" banks (and rightfully so), eliminating them may put a lot of people out of work -- a downside to the downsizing.
        as if we could not eliminate the problem without eliminating jobs, it was necessary to point out that you are mistaken.  Big banks can be defanged without this downsizing which does nothing to defang the big banks on its own.

        And "Big" most definitely is a problem -- it just isn't the only problem, and that's a dangerous mistake to make.  The behemoths we are left with concentrate direct control of and influence over such a large slice of the global economy (let alone the domestic economy) that they push and twist regulation and market interests at their whim -- there is less competition than there is cabal.  

        Without robust competition, they set fee placement and rates and adjust them (upward, naturally) practically without interference, largely because consumers haven't sufficient choices to balance access to funds against costs.  And, while the decision-making is based on a separate set of self-interests, the same situation faces corporations.   This is the essence of consolidation that concentrates so much global capital in so few hands and leaves so many of us so exposed to the selfish choices of so few crooks and gluttons.

        Without robust competition, these banks have so much influence they don't even have to succeed because there are no other choices.  Moreover, their sheer size in terms of global influence indemnifies themselves from both customer and regulatory repercussion.  Their response to pushback is, most often,

        Whattaya gonna do -- slit your throat?  Go ahead.

        It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

        by Murphoney on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:46:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Defanging (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Murphoney

          big banks present a different set of challenges and goals as apart from addressing too-big-to-fail (TBTF), though the two goals tend to be complimentary.  In various ways, the sheer size of such TBTF banks certainly enables much of the undesirable behavior that we both find distasteful.  Of course, it's unclear how big is too big.

          Love this:

          Whattaya gonna do -- slit your throat?  Go ahead.

          Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

          by winsock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:21:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, mere influence and poor competition aren't (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            winsock

            the only evils -- 2007-2008 showed us what happens when they aren't just left alone, but are allowed to own the sandbox.

            Honestly, that level of finance is beyond me.  While I understand it's all largely a ponzi paperchase, I can't say I understand how it would be stopped and then reversed, nor all of the implications and IEDs that are strewn along the way.

            The fact that tend republicans to reflecively chant Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac to the tune of "USA! USA!" and loud enough to drown out substantive discussion and progress doesn't help, of course.

            It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

            by Murphoney on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:39:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The workings are so complex (0+ / 0-)

              that it's hard for any one person to fully grasp.  It's like being a scientific expert in all fields at once.  All most of us laymen know comes from gleaning information from the media, our experience as consumers and perhaps trading securities in the banking sector.  And perhaps this contributes to the hammer that the banks hold over our collective heads in terms of power and authority.

              Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

              by winsock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:25:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site