Sanders interview with the New York Daily News: Breaking up the banks

[BainsBane]

Sanders: What I foresee is a stronger national economy. And, in fact, a stronger economy in New York State, as well. What I foresee is a financial system which actually makes affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses. Does not live as an island onto themselves concerned about their own profits. And, in fact, creating incredibly complicated financial tools, which have led us into the worst economic recession in the modern history of the United States.

Daily News: I get that point. I'm just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?

Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.
. . .

So I can't say, if you're saying that we’re going to break up the banks, will it have a negative consequence on some people? I suspect that it will. Will it have a positive impact on the economy in general? Yes, I think it will.

Daily News: Well, it does depend on how you do it, I believe. And, I'm a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order...

Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator.

Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I'm not quite...

Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up.

Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?

Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306

[Firebrand Gary]

1. Total disaster for camp Sanders!

It's not just big banks.

There are a lot of people who work in those big banks, they have communities, families, mortgages that depend on them. If you're lobbying to deconstruct the entire sector, as Sander's has done, he should have done his homework. People have a right to know what your proposing.

[BainsBane]

4. I find it disconcerting

that he feels no responsibility to think about the results of what he proposes on jobs, on lending, or anything. He falls back to what he believes. General beliefs are fine, but the president runs on a platform of policies he plans to implement. That means he should have some idea of what is involved in doing that.

[thesquanderer]

6. Please also see post #5 (n/t)

[thesquanderer]

5. Sanders is right. It's the same as when the government breaks up a monopoly.

When the government says that something must be broken up (as they have done in the past with monopolies), it is not up to the government to decide *how* that breakup is to be done. The company is supposed to come up with their own plan that they think will address the concerns, submit that plan to the government, and then the government can approve it (or not, if they think it does not adequately address the concern). It is not the job of the government to create the plan. So Sanders is exactly right in the interview, when his answer to exactly how they would be broken up was:

that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision.

As for the fate of the employees, that, too, would be determined by the companies themselves. For example, if a bank splits into a glass-steagall style pair of separate companies for commercial and personal banking, employees could be reassigned accordingly. When you talk about "deconstructing the entire sector" it sounds like you think all these functions and jobs will just disappear. No... they will be split among numerous smaller institutions, instead of a handful of huge ones.

[mcar]

2. He didn't seem very prepared to answer actual questions

[Surya Gayatri]

3. Devastating proof that he's not ready for prime time.

[DesertRat]

7. This illustrates that Sanders doesn't know much beyond

his standard stump speech about breaking up the banks.

[frylock]

8. [Insert talking point as issued by Clinton campaign here]