Chronicles in the Trials and Tribulations of Hillary Clinton - Working Class Warrior(s) Speaking Fees

[laughing dog]

How would he do that? US president doesn't get magical world dictatorial powers.

Your view appears diametrically opposed to every POTUS candidate in the Republican and Democratic party. What do you know that they don't?

 

[untermensche]

If Bernie wins he win move to break up the banks and reduce the societal risk of banks that are too big to fail.

The government cannot keep paying out when corrupt institutions disrupt the system.

All people making a lot of money because banks are so large and competition is so small, and their insurance policy is paid for by the taxpayers, will not like this.

How would he do that? US president doesn't get magical world dictatorial powers.

How will he move?

The initiation of movement is not fully understood.

 

[Axulus]

How would he do that? US president doesn't get magical world dictatorial powers.

How will he move?

The initiation of movement is not fully understood.

How will he break up big banks? Can he tell Switzerland, France, UK, China, India and Germany how large their banks get to be?

 

[untermensche]

How will he move?

The initiation of movement is not fully understood.

How will he break up big banks? Can he tell Switzerland, France, UK, China, India and Germany how large their banks get to be?

Believe it or not I don't speak for him.

But reintroducing the wall between commercial and speculative banking will be a good start.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How will he move?

The initiation of movement is not fully understood.

How will he break up big banks? Can he tell Switzerland, France, UK, China, India and Germany how large their banks get to be?

Probably set liquidity standards that will significantly increase required liquid holdings with the size of a banks portfolio. This would make extremely large banks either stable or non-existent. This really isn't a bad idea. I think if people crack open a history book and look way back to 2008, they'll see why requiring massive banks to have substantial liquid holdings as a safety net is proper regulation.

 

[coloradoatheist]

How will he break up big banks? Can he tell Switzerland, France, UK, China, India and Germany how large their banks get to be?

Believe it or not I don't speak for him.

But reintroducing the wall between commercial and speculative banking will be a good start.

It's possible for him to break up the banks. However it's interesting, the banks who diversified before the financial meltdown were the ones who were much better position during the meltdown than banks or institutions who didn't diversify.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Believe it or not I don't speak for him.

But reintroducing the wall between commercial and speculative banking will be a good start.

It's possible for him to break up the banks. However it's interesting, the banks who diversified before the financial meltdown were the ones who were much better position during the meltdown than banks or institutions who didn't diversify.

Who exactly, among the larger banks?

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's possible for him to break up the banks. However it's interesting, the banks who diversified before the financial meltdown were the ones who were much better position during the meltdown than banks or institutions who didn't diversify.

Who exactly, among the larger banks?

Here is a list of the institutions that had failed or nearly failed

Investment
Lehman Brothers
Bear Sterns
Merrill Lynch

Strict Banks
country wide
and a few others

The institutions that diversified were in better financial shape than those firms that stayed on one side or another

That doesn't address too big to fail though. So we need to make sure we break them up right if we do.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Who exactly, among the larger banks?

Here is a list of the institutions that had failed or nearly failed

Investment
Lehman Brothers
Bear Sterns
Merrill Lynch

Strict Banks
country wide
and a few others

The institutions that diversified were in better financial shape than those firms that stayed on one side or another

You didn't list the ones that were plainly solvent. The Ted Spread cracked which indicated none of the big banks trusted any of the other big banks. They were all talking big, like Goldman Sachs, but many needed to be rescued.

That doesn't address too big to fail though. So we need to make sure we break them up right if we do.

Let themselves break up themselves, just require higher liquid holdings for larger banks.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Here is a list of the institutions that had failed or nearly failed

Investment
Lehman Brothers
Bear Sterns
Merrill Lynch

Strict Banks
country wide
and a few others

The institutions that diversified were in better financial shape than those firms that stayed on one side or another

You didn't list the ones that were plainly solvent. The Ted Spread cracked which indicated none of the big banks trusted any of the other big banks. They were all talking big, like Goldman Sachs, but many needed to be rescued.

That doesn't address too big to fail though. So we need to make sure we break them up right if we do.

Let themselves break up themselves, just require higher liquid holdings for larger banks.

It cracked when the markets found out Lehman Brothers had a potential not be able to pay it's stable fund and had a cascading affect for a while. But here is an article on which banks bought the investment firms. Goldman and Morgan Stanley becomes diversified banks so they didn't go under.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/goldman-morgan-to-become-bank-holding-companies/

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You didn't list the ones that were plainly solvent. The Ted Spread cracked which indicated none of the big banks trusted any of the other big banks. They were all talking big, like Goldman Sachs, but many needed to be rescued.

That doesn't address too big to fail though. So we need to make sure we break them up right if we do.

Let themselves break up themselves, just require higher liquid holdings for larger banks.

It cracked when the markets found out Lehman Brothers had a potential not be able to pay it's stable fund and had a cascading affect for a while. But here is an article on which banks bought the investment firms. Goldman and Morgan Stanley becomes diversified banks so they didn't go under.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/goldman-morgan-to-become-bank-holding-companies/

Goldman didn't go under because of TARP. Why do you think AIG was rescued in the first place? Because Goldman would have suffered dearly if it did.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You didn't list the ones that were plainly solvent. The Ted Spread cracked which indicated none of the big banks trusted any of the other big banks. They were all talking big, like Goldman Sachs, but many needed to be rescued.

That doesn't address too big to fail though. So we need to make sure we break them up right if we do.

Let themselves break up themselves, just require higher liquid holdings for larger banks.

It cracked when the markets found out Lehman Brothers had a potential not be able to pay it's stable fund and had a cascading affect for a while. But here is an article on which banks bought the investment firms. Goldman and Morgan Stanley becomes diversified banks so they didn't go under.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/goldman-morgan-to-become-bank-holding-companies/

Goldman didn't go under because of TARP. Why do you think AIG was rescued in the first place? Because Goldman would have suffered dearly if it did.

I'm not sure what we are arguing. Goldman stayed investment and had to be bailed out by being converted to a bank that had both sides and given money. The institutions that had diversified were more solid.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You didn't list the ones that were plainly solvent. The Ted Spread cracked which indicated none of the big banks trusted any of the other big banks. They were all talking big, like Goldman Sachs, but many needed to be rescued.

That doesn't address too big to fail though. So we need to make sure we break them up right if we do.

Let themselves break up themselves, just require higher liquid holdings for larger banks.

It cracked when the markets found out Lehman Brothers had a potential not be able to pay it's stable fund and had a cascading affect for a while. But here is an article on which banks bought the investment firms. Goldman and Morgan Stanley becomes diversified banks so they didn't go under.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/goldman-morgan-to-become-bank-holding-companies/

Goldman didn't go under because of TARP. Why do you think AIG was rescued in the first place? Because Goldman would have suffered dearly if it did.

I'm not sure what we are arguing. Goldman stayed investment and had to be bailed out by being converted to a bank that had both sides and given money. The institutions that had diversified were more solid.

You haven't referenced a single one that was actually solid. And the Ted Spread indicated that the large institutions didn't trust each other, not just Lehman Brothers. They were only willing to deal with the Governments for lending at that point, which was creating the capital freeze that nearly destroyed the global economy.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You didn't list the ones that were plainly solvent. The Ted Spread cracked which indicated none of the big banks trusted any of the other big banks. They were all talking big, like Goldman Sachs, but many needed to be rescued.

That doesn't address too big to fail though. So we need to make sure we break them up right if we do.

Let themselves break up themselves, just require higher liquid holdings for larger banks.

It cracked when the markets found out Lehman Brothers had a potential not be able to pay it's stable fund and had a cascading affect for a while. But here is an article on which banks bought the investment firms. Goldman and Morgan Stanley becomes diversified banks so they didn't go under.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/goldman-morgan-to-become-bank-holding-companies/

Goldman didn't go under because of TARP. Why do you think AIG was rescued in the first place? Because Goldman would have suffered dearly if it did.

I'm not sure what we are arguing. Goldman stayed investment and had to be bailed out by being converted to a bank that had both sides and given money. The institutions that had diversified were more solid.

You haven't referenced a single one that was actually solid. And the Ted Spread indicated that the large institutions didn't trust each other, not just Lehman Brothers. They were only willing to deal with the Governments for lending at that point, which was creating the capital freeze that nearly destroyed the global economy.

Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy
Bear Sterns was sold to JPMorgan
AIG was rescued

CountryWide was sold to Bank of America

So your point was that none of those other banks that both this institutions were solid at all? Why didn't BoA or JpMorgan have to be sold to someone else?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You didn't list the ones that were plainly solvent. The Ted Spread cracked which indicated none of the big banks trusted any of the other big banks. They were all talking big, like Goldman Sachs, but many needed to be rescued.

That doesn't address too big to fail though. So we need to make sure we break them up right if we do.

Let themselves break up themselves, just require higher liquid holdings for larger banks.

It cracked when the markets found out Lehman Brothers had a potential not be able to pay it's stable fund and had a cascading affect for a while. But here is an article on which banks bought the investment firms. Goldman and Morgan Stanley becomes diversified banks so they didn't go under.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/goldman-morgan-to-become-bank-holding-companies/

Goldman didn't go under because of TARP. Why do you think AIG was rescued in the first place? Because Goldman would have suffered dearly if it did.

I'm not sure what we are arguing. Goldman stayed investment and had to be bailed out by being converted to a bank that had both sides and given money. The institutions that had diversified were more solid.

You haven't referenced a single one that was actually solid. And the Ted Spread indicated that the large institutions didn't trust each other, not just Lehman Brothers. They were only willing to deal with the Governments for lending at that point, which was creating the capital freeze that nearly destroyed the global economy.

Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy
Bear Sterns was sold to JPMorgan
AIG was rescued

CountryWide was sold to Bank of America

So your point was that none of those other banks that both this institutions were solid at all? Why didn't BoA or JpMorgan have to be sold to someone else?

So when I ask for a list of stable banks, all you continue to do is talk about the ones that died or were absorbed by other institutions. Yet, you can't speak of a single one that was stable, that any of the other banks considered at the time, stable enough to loan money to.

 

[arkirk]

At what point does a speaking fee imply quid pro quo? I think it is long before it comes to $675,000. If you love machine politics, you will love Hillary. With her you can have your corporate sweetheart and also a "progressive?" My ass! Hillary clearly has been playing on the ignorance of her constituents. She is not an advocate for minorities or women. That is just an assumption her voters make.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You didn't list the ones that were plainly solvent. The Ted Spread cracked which indicated none of the big banks trusted any of the other big banks. They were all talking big, like Goldman Sachs, but many needed to be rescued.

That doesn't address too big to fail though. So we need to make sure we break them up right if we do.

Let themselves break up themselves, just require higher liquid holdings for larger banks.

It cracked when the markets found out Lehman Brothers had a potential not be able to pay it's stable fund and had a cascading affect for a while. But here is an article on which banks bought the investment firms. Goldman and Morgan Stanley becomes diversified banks so they didn't go under.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/goldman-morgan-to-become-bank-holding-companies/

Goldman didn't go under because of TARP. Why do you think AIG was rescued in the first place? Because Goldman would have suffered dearly if it did.

I'm not sure what we are arguing. Goldman stayed investment and had to be bailed out by being converted to a bank that had both sides and given money. The institutions that had diversified were more solid.

You haven't referenced a single one that was actually solid. And the Ted Spread indicated that the large institutions didn't trust each other, not just Lehman Brothers. They were only willing to deal with the Governments for lending at that point, which was creating the capital freeze that nearly destroyed the global economy.

Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy
Bear Sterns was sold to JPMorgan
AIG was rescued

CountryWide was sold to Bank of America

So your point was that none of those other banks that both this institutions were solid at all? Why didn't BoA or JpMorgan have to be sold to someone else?

So when I ask for a list of stable banks, all you continue to do is talk about the ones that died or were absorbed by other institutions. Yet, you can't speak of a single one that was stable, that any of the other banks considered at the time, stable enough to loan money to.

There was banks at the time that were perfectly fine but it was a bank run on a much smaller bank that prompted it. Nobody knew for sure.

It wasn't the Glass Staegall act or changes that had anything to do with the problems. Other lack of regulations maybe.

 

[dismal]

The government forced even the solvent banks to participate in TARP to mask who the insolvent banks were.

 

[ksen]

It wasn't the Glass Staegall act or changes that had anything to do with the problems.

Right, it's just a coincidence that barely a decade after banking reform designed to stop us from having another Great Depression was repealed that we almost had another Great Depression.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It wasn't the Glass Staegall act or changes that had anything to do with the problems.

Right, it's just a coincidence that barely a decade after banking reform designed to stop us from having another Great Depression was repealed that we almost had another Great Depression.

And if that was the only variable that changed, yes but it wasn't even close to the only major variable that was changed.