How will Sanders replace all those banking jobs?

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Aazadan

Healthier banks would have stepped in to acquire the assets and businesses of banks that collapsed. No bank or business should ever be too big to fail. Government should not be bailing out any businesses. The risk of failure is what keeps management from taking on too much risk.

I also support separating Wall Street banking from commercial banking.

What's to stop the healthier banks from only buying good assets and ultimately leaving the doomed bank with only the bad ones and an inability to pay it off? That represents peoples retirements, savings, college funds, and so on. It doesn't serve the national interest for them to lose it all.

By throwing them off a ship in the middle of the ocean.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Aazadan

Healthier banks would have stepped in to acquire the assets and businesses of banks that collapsed. No bank or business should ever be too big to fail. Government should not be bailing out any businesses. The risk of failure is what keeps management from taking on too much risk.

I also support separating Wall Street banking from commercial banking.

What's to stop the healthier banks from only buying good assets and ultimately leaving the doomed bank with only the bad ones and an inability to pay it off? That represents peoples retirements, savings, college funds, and so on. It doesn't serve the national interest for them to lose it all.

A bank failing does not necessarily mean the assets of the customer disappears with the failure.

originally posted by: Edumakated
What's to stop the healthier banks from only buying good assets and ultimately leaving the doomed bank with only the bad ones and an inability to pay it off? That represents peoples retirements, savings, college funds, and so on. It doesn't serve the national interest for them to lose it all.

A bank failing does not necessarily mean the assets of the customer disappears with the failure.



The problem comes from the banks debt. In 2008 it was toxic assets which the government ended up purchasing. If those are greater than the banks actual assets such as what will happen if/when the derivatives bubble bursts, no amount of selling assets will save peoples investments. Everyone loses a lot of money in that scenario, but people lose even more if the banks go out of business and liquidate everything they have.

a reply to: Aazadan

If everybody loses everything who owns it?

originally posted by: muse7
Everytime he goes into his stump speech he says he intends to shut down the big bad banks. In a place like New York city, wouldn't that be very devastating to the economy? Not only do those big banks provide hundreds of thousands of jobs to the city but thousands of small businesses and workers depend on them also

Local restaurants, taxi companies, hotels etc

If these banks are forced to lay off people then those other businesses will also suffer.

How will he replace those jobs? What is his plan to provide a job to the waitress whose hours were reduced due to the restaurant where she works at losing customers?

Or hotel staff?

What about the people that worked at these banks? What will they do?

Has he answered these questions?

Thats why im not a big fan of his, even if his intentions are good

People work at these places

Just because an evil place employs people doesn't mean we should keep it in business. The Mafia, the Cartel, Heroine manufacturers, Pimps, Scientology, ISIS...they all employ people too. We put them out of business and lots of people will lose their income.

Bad argument. My employment has never been tied to one industry. I could manage, I could do customer service, IT support, Marketing. But I can do that stuff anywhere for any company.

Historically, a candidate's more moderate, realistic plans arise after the primaries. They have to out-party their fellow party members first, then be more moderate for the general election

I would've been interested in seeing what happened if they would have let the bankers burn after the 2008 crisis; forest fires give rise to new growth.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Aazadan

If everybody loses everything who owns it?

In that scenario, most likely no one would own it. Toxic assets would drag the bank down, they wouldn't keep the capital on hand to maintain a reserve ratio, and they would cease to exist. Remaining healthy assets would be sold off, while the rest would get discharged in the corporations bankruptcy.

That's how I think it would work atleast, far from an expert in that area.

originally posted by: cooperton
Historically, a candidate's more moderate, realistic plans arise after the primaries. They have to out-party their fellow party members first, then be more moderate for the general election

I would've been interested in seeing what happened if they would have let the bankers burn after the 2008 crisis; forest fires give rise to new growth.

I literally ask myself this question every single week. More than even 9/11, 2008 was the formative event of my generation (I'm 33 now).

If we had let the banks fail the world would be a very different place right now. I suspect there would be way more government assistance going on, and our economy would be far smaller. On the other hand we would probably be like Iceland in that we have a (socially) healthy banking system now made of local banks and credit unions, or perhaps even a nationalized financial industry. There would probably be a lot less money involved in politics right now too. On the other hand, I suspect taxes would be much higher, and the long term outlook would be bleak as most of the country would have lost their retirement plan. We would probably be cashless, and likely no longer a super power. The debt would probably be $10 trillion higher.

Big bad banks disapear and big good banks fill the gaps.. its not that difficult.

a reply to: muse7

dont forget about the coc aine trade that will suffer as well as high class hookers. theres a whole industry that relies on these money masters. im sure if these bankers struggle they can sell off their families and grand mothers

He will put the workers on farms, doing agriculture and milking cows instead of people.

originally posted by: Aazadan
If we had let the banks fail as they deserved to, it would have absolutely wrecked quality of life in the US for the next several generations.

That is propaganda promoted by the banks themselves and I am not falling for it. Another company(s) would have picked up their mismanaged pieces and carried on.

Apple, Microsoft, most utility companies, the banks, and several others.

Huh? If Apple fails the quality of life will be impaired for generations? Doubtful. Utility companies fail, look at LIPA, PSE&G stepped in and took over.

originally posted by: muse7
Everytime he goes into his stump speech he says he intends to shut down the big bad banks. In a place like New York city, wouldn't that be very devastating to the economy? Not only do those big banks provide hundreds of thousands of jobs to the city but thousands of small businesses and workers depend on them also

Local restaurants, taxi companies, hotels etc

If these banks are forced to lay off people then those other businesses will also suffer.

How will he replace those jobs? What is his plan to provide a job to the waitress whose hours were reduced due to the restaurant where she works at losing customers?

Or hotel staff?

What about the people that worked at these banks? What will they do?

Has he answered these questions?

Thats why im not a big fan of his, even if his intentions are good

People work at these places

Should we just let them go on and eventually have to bail them out again? They destroyed the economy here in the U.S. and contributed to the mess overseas. As a Sanders supporter I don't agree with his economic plan, but breaking up big banks is definitely something that needs to happen. The sooner the better I say.

a reply to: muse7

Is this thread for real? You're asking us to feel sympathy for the banks? I'm sure that they can figure out a way to continue to make money and be successful with a little damn regulation and federal oversight.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Huh? If Apple fails the quality of life will be impaired for generations? Doubtful. Utility companies fail, look at LIPA, PSE&G stepped in and took over.

Apple is responsible for a lot of mission critical computing infrastructure. If they were to go under, the economy would lose trillions before everything settled.

Smaller locally owned banks and credit unions would mean more jobs.

When they broke up Ma Bell the jobs did not disappear.


Our super conglomerate banks mean big pay for their CEO's. breaking up those banks would mean more middle class jobs!

originally posted by: Aazadan
Apple is responsible for a lot of mission critical computing infrastructure. If they were to go under, the economy would lose trillions before everything settled.

And some company(s) would take over their responsibilities. Private industry does not need bail outs.

He's not actually talking about shutting down any banks, he's talking about breaking them up and seperating the speculative investment high risk banking from the day to day banking where normal people have their money.

So that the high-rolling gamblers in the bank can't take your money and my money and chuck it onto the roulette board any more, and then come whinging to the taxpayer when it all gets wiped out and they need trillions more dollars from the taxpayer to stop the whole economic system collapsing.


This, to me, sounds like a jolly good idea.

But hey, if folks want to continue defending the bankers who crashed the world economy in 2008 with their greed and corruption, fair play to you.

a reply to: muse7


Communal Unicorn Ranches


Seriously, did you think those things were going to grow on the money trees?