Atitudine ferma fata de banci...la altii

Atitudine ferma fata de banci..la altii – 10 aprilie 2016

Dinica Roman

 

In Romania, actiuni firesti in capitalism, ca acelea ale lui Gheorghe Piperea, ii fac pe cei de la BfNR sa anunte intrarea in pericole pe care sumbrul nu le poate descrie. In SUA, unul din candidatii fruntasi au anunatat nici mai mult nici mai putin decat un plan de destructurare a marilor banci.

January 6, 2016 12:19 am
Bernie Sanders outlines plan to dismantle big banks
Ben McLannahan in New York and Courtney Weaver in Washington

Bernie Sanders stepped up his anti-bank rhetoric on Tuesday, prompting the campaign of Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, to fire back with more tough talk on curbing risky behaviour on Wall Street.

Mr Sanders, the senator for Vermont, has repeatedly gone after Mrs Clinton for being too soft on banks and lambasted her for taking millions of dollars from them in speaking fees. In past speeches, he has focused on restoring the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, the rule that separated commercial and investment banking, while also endorsing a special tax to limit speculation.

On Tuesday Mr Sanders went further, setting a timetable for dismantling various "too big to fail" financial institutions, which would include hedge funds and insurance companies as well as banks. Within one year, he said, his administration would break them all up, ensuring that they no longer posed a "catastrophic" risk to the US economy and that taxpayers would not be on the hook for another bailout.

"If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist," said Mr Sanders, to whoops and cheers at a packed gathering of supporters in midtown Manhattan, in the shadow of Bank of America Tower. "When it comes to Wall Street reform that must be our bottom line . . . A handful of huge financial institutions simply have too much economic and political power over this country."

The emergence of Mr Sanders as a credible rival to Mrs Clinton has pushed the issue of banking reform to the front lines of the Democratic primaries, with Mr Sanders' fierce stance on the issue appearing to push Mrs Clinton slightly to the left.

A few weeks before the beginning of primary season on February 1, Mr Sanders continues to score about one in three votes in national polls, according to RealClearPolitics. The aggregator currently has the Vermont senator trailing Mrs Clinton by an average 21.3 percentage points, less than half the gap six months ago.

Analysts say that the first of the primaries — in Iowa and New Hampshire, which adjoins Mr Sanders' home state — will be critical in shaping the contest. If Mr Sanders does better than expected in both states, then he could enter the March primaries with a real advantage. But if Mr Sanders' support drops and Mrs Clinton wins with ease, then his campaign "is effectively at an end", wrote Terry Haines, analyst at Evercore ISI, in a research note this week.
Donald Trump adds paid-for TV ads to freewheeling campaign
Donald Trump in Nevada last month as part of his campaign for nomination as the Republican candidate for US president
Republican frontrunner and past master of garnering news coverage releases first commercial

Mrs Clinton has vowed to get a stronger grip on banks and so-called "shadow banks", but she differs with her opponent about whether to reinstate Glass-Steagall, which was repealed under Bill Clinton's presidency. In October she outlined a range of improvements to banking regulation — measures that Mr Sanders dismissed on Tuesday as inadequate to rein in "excesses".

"The reality is that Congress doesn't regulate Wall Street," he said. "Wall Street, its lobbyists and their billions of dollars regulate Congress. We must change that reality, and as president I will."
Mrs Clinton's campaign on Monday had tried to pre-empt the speech by arguing that it was too narrow, saying that Mr Sanders should "go beyond" his bank-focused plans to take account of activities outside the regulated banking system.

In a statement on Monday, Gary Gensler, Mrs Clinton's chief financial officer and the former chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, accused Mr Sanders of taking a "hands-off approach" to hedge funds and insurance companies such as AIG, which he said were "among the biggest culprits during the 2008 crisis".

The response from the Sanders camp was short. "Senator Sanders won't be taking advice on how to regulate Wall Street from a former Goldman Sachs partner and a former Treasury department official who helped Wall Street rig the system," wrote Michael Briggs, Mr Sanders' communications director, in an email.

Four of Mrs Clinton's top five backers over her Senate career have been banks: Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley.

Wall Street ties have also boosted her personal wealth. In 2013, Mrs Clinton made more than $3m from addressing firms including Goldman Sachs, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, Apollo and CME Group, according to a list released by her campaign.

In contrast, Mr Sanders' top donors are almost entirely union groups. He earned less than $2,000 from speeches in 2014*.

 

 

Bernie Sanders outlines plan to dismantle big banks - FT.com

Bernie Sanders stepped up his anti-bank rhetoric on Tuesday, prompting the campaign of Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential…

FT.COM

 

Dinica Roman Cititorii de la Financial Times comenteaza:

yellamoon Jan 6, 2016
Sanders' position sounds radical at first blush, but breaking up bigger banks into smaller ones could promote competition in the financial sector and reduce systemic risk.

VikZ Jan 6, 2016
@yellamoon Even in an economics sense more firms increases consumer surplus I don't see how encouraging competition is radical. 

Jerryjb Jan 5, 2016
Mr . Sanders mentions some very pertinent points. Though I was skeptical of his willingness to actually want to win the US presidential nomination because of his unwillingness to attack Mrs. Clinton in regard to her emails, general untrustworthiness, and her husband's character problems, he goes to a point that could affect Europe also. Banks and indeed shadow banking -hedge funds, etc. will no doubt play a bigger role when it comes to financing of business in the future. One can argue that banks already play too large a role in Europe because equity markets are not relied upon as much as America in terms of financing companies. Europe too should be wary of letting shadow banking get too big or unregulated so as to not endanger the general public. Of course, how much is too much? Nevertheless, I applaud Mr. Sanders in at least mentioning "the elephant in the room. " It seems Mrs. Clinton is trying to hide the elephant in the room in some closet. 

William Thayer Sr Jan 5, 2016
Well, I generally hate everything Sanders says, but he is making some good points:

1. Bring back Glass Steagal (which separates banking from investing)

2. Break up the big Wall St. banks (these are the banks responsible for the dangerous lunacy of $700 Tril in Derivatives); we can have good banking with smaller banks.

fiatsceptic Jan 5, 2016
FT: "Four of Mrs Clinton's top five backers over her Senate career have been banks: Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley." The OpenSecrets supporting link is icing; count me as impressed with this FT specificity on the point!

Sanders: "The reality is that fraud is the business model on Wall Street." Silly rhetoric, that, but note how, in conjunction with his "break them all up" proposal, it places Clinton squarely astride the large gauge financial-political corruption conduit, right at the heart of the problem. The authors mostly understand that the importance lies in this more than in Sanders' substance, but the headline is a miss. Try "Sanders in frontal threat to Clinton's big bank support network".

Sanders' campaign has always had this quality, and Clinton's reactive rhetoric continues to have two main parts, only the first of which the FT touches on here: (1) Look, over there, away from my big bank support network, at shadow banking risks; and (2) that this emphasis makes her more sophisticated than Sanders.

Stan of Stanistan Jan 6, 2016
@fiatsceptic If Hillary appears more sophisticated than Bernie, it's because of her use of the rhetorical technique called 'fogging' as you point out in your "Look over there" observation. Bernie's support comes from people who appreciate plain talk (but not hate speech ala Trump). 

balakris Jan 6, 2016
@fiatsceptic does h c get the big question of systemic risk because of excessive financial activity in relation to economic growth?

fraud IS the financial sector's business model. i know being in finance myself.

Boomer.88 Jan 6, 2016
When companies have more money than the governments you know who calls the shots.

There is no politician in the world who cannot be bought, democracy is an illusion

 

Smaranda Dobrescu Chiar nechemati, cred ca toti romanii au deja un favorit in batalia pentru presedentia SUA. Desigur ca si eu visez niste etape intermediare posibile ca Sanders sa ajunga presedinte si sa o aibe pe Warren vice-presedinta smile emoticon
Realist vorbind, nu stiu cum poate Sanders spera in nominalizarea democratilor daca se exprima "Nu aveti incredere in democrati"?Tot ceea ce pot spune acum este ca nominalizarea sa ma preocupa mai putin decat capacitatea lui de a genera o miscare solida capabila sa reformeze/schimbe sistemul.Crestinarea marilor banci alaturi de cele 10 idei-cadru ale sale privind schimbarea mentalitatii de pozitionare in sistem ca american de rand sunt idei remarcabile:
http://www.truth-out.org/.../35557-how-not-to-bern-out...

 

 

How Not to ''Bern Out'': Ten Steps Toward a Future We Can Believe In

TRUTH-OUT.ORG|BY QUINCY SAUL

 

Dinica Roman Mai ales ca sistemul electoral aici este facut pentru a proteja status qvo-ul.
http://www.politicususa.com/.../hillary-clinton...

 

 

Hillary Clinton Celebrates Beating Expectations And Tying Sanders In…

POLITICUSUSA.COM|BY JASON EASLEY

 

Mihai Ion Turcu Dupa o criza generala generata de bancile americane adaugand ce spune Sanders ca au prea mare putere politica, Sanders nominalizat (?) ma indoiesc, ar castiga alegerile. Ce castiga Sanders acuma posibil va trece in contul lui Trump, si el anuntand o presedintie viguroasa antisistem ( care va fi sau nu antiosistem). Doamna Clinton este sistemul insusi.

 

Dinica Roman Vom vedea, Trump scutura si el status qvo-ul. Adaugand la ce scriati recent aici, apropos de rezistenta ideii de natiune, planurile elitei sunt puse sub semnul intrebarii la toate nivelele.

 

Mihai Ion Turcu Ce credem noi aicea despre ce se va inatmpla in SUA este pura speculatie, dar este extrem de important pentru noi aicea ce se vaq intampla acolo. Dumneavoastra acolo sunteti in cu totul alta pozitie. Pe cat posibil sa ne orientati SVP. E important sa fim oarecum pregatiti ....

 

Dinica Roman "I see pitchforks.

At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country—the 99.99 percent—is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.

But the problem isn't that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution."

http://www.politico.com/.../the-pitchforks-are-coming-for...

 

 

The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats

POLITICO.COM

 

Prospectiv A-z .
In continuarea ideilor de mai sus, iata si perspectiva unei curve de lux, pardon, economist al sistemului:

"În numele reducerii inegalității în SUA, candidații prezidențiali din ambele partide zădărnicesc aspirațiile a sute de milioane de oameni săraci și disperați din țările în curs de dezvoltare care doresc să ajungă în clasa mijlocie. Dacă apelul pentru politici anti-comerciale se va dovedi unul durabil, el va marca un moment decisiv în afacerile economice mondiale, unul care prevestește ceva rău pentru rolul de lider al Americii".

Gasesc aceste ganduri de un cinism infiorator. Mai crede oare careva ca "aspirațiile a sute de milioane de oameni săraci și disperați din țările în curs de dezvoltare" il framanta pe cel din apropierea varfului piramidei? Toata schema e un fel de a starni pe unii impotriva altora, in timp ce varful isi vede de treburi linistit; Tinerii cu batranii, barbatii cu femeile, albii cu negrii, vesticii cu nevesticii, ateii cu religiosii etc.

http://www.cotidianul.ro/retorica-ce-prevesteste.../

 

Mihai Ion Turcu Cele cateva state mari (teritoriu, resurse, populatie, forta economica si militara, stabilitate) pot exista o vreme autarhic. SUA se comporta "pulsatil", implicre mondiala si retragere in si pentru sine.Exportul de paradigme social-politice si revolutii al acestor agregate colosale, sustinut politic si militar, se justifica intern atata timp cat aduce exportatorului beneficii economice si financiqare. Colonialismul clasic, modern, cu origine europeana,Spania, Anglia, Franta, Olanda, Portugalia, puteri maritime, sau de alta factura a puterilor continentale, Germania, toate bazate pe capacitate tehnologica si putere militara, sau doar pe puterea militara Rusia si Imperiul Otoman, a esuat definitiv prin anii 60 ai secolului trecut posibil si pentru ca metropola colonizatoare-si propunea sa administreze direct coloniile si sa ' modernizeze" lumile invadate si luate sub stapanire. efort considerabil si costisitor.Imperialismul SUA , mai recent, a sofisticat mijloacele de dominare, bazate tot pe puterea militara conexa cu tehnologia si progresul ei, inlocuind exercitiul efectiv al fortei prin amenintarea cu imbatabila sa forta, asociat exportului de pardigma propusa si impusa cu mijloace politice si manevre de destabilizare interna ale tintelor, ieftin si eficient, dar in special prin capacitatea de manevrare financiara,dupa ce dolarul a devenit etalon de valoare mondial, SUA avand monopolul tiparirii dolarilor, dupa nevoi si interese, dar si de a-l face mai scump sau mai ieftin in exterior prin manevre financiare, banul fiind detasat de valoarea sa intrinseca.Neocolonialismul nu mai presupune preluarea de responsabilitati in spatiile colonizate ci doar asigurarea accesului preferential sau exclusiv la resurse importante. Pretentia ca obiectivul interventiilor in lume ar fi in numele propriei paradigme social-politice ipostaziata ca standard al propasirii universale,ar fi motivul, este cosmetica,real este vorba de asigurare de resurse resurse si piete care sa asigure profit , marit prin discrepantele existente si mentinute deliberat. (Ce vand eu este scump ce cumpar de la tine este ieftin in plus impun monopolul meu la vanzare si exclusivitate la cumparare, la pretul pe care eu i-l stabilesc, nenegociabil, plus oferta der bani ca imprumut pentru a avea la dispozitie un instrument de constrangere in plus). Se adauga "imeprialismul cultural". Care este beneficiul celor colonizati, sa analizam India, Africa, incercarea de colonizare a Chinei. Poate exita un beneficiu pe termen lung , termen care nu este inca epuizat, constatand distrugerile de tot felul, si reactiile de aparare, India, China, sau eforturile de emancipare a satelitilor imperiilor continentale, ai Rusiei si Germaniei. ???