2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWaPo: "Sanders’s shocking ignorance on his core issue"
Jesse Ferguson ?@JesseFFergusonWAPO Editorial - "Mr. Sanderss shocking ignorance on his core issue" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-sanderss-shocking-ignorance-on-his-core-issue/2016/04/07/83a8e33c-fc34-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html?postshare=3281460088072392&tid=ss_tw
By Editorial Board April 7
MORE THAN anything else, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has based his campaign on attacking Wall Street the millionaires and billionaires who, by his telling, wrecked the U.S. economy, dominate the political system and must be brought to heel. Given his commitment to the message, you might expect he would have some familiarity with the policy details and implications.
A New York Daily News editorial board interview with the candidate proved otherwise. The senator seemed to have no idea of what reformed banks should look like, or whether he would need new legislation, even though the government under his presidency would play a central role in tearing apart these complex financial institutions.
Mr. Sanders followed the interview with what was meant to be a clarifying statement. The treasury secretary would draw up a list of too-big-to-fail banks, Mr. Sanders explained, and break them up under the authority of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. In an interview with us, Sanders policy adviser Warren Gunnels said that current regulators are not applying existing authorities aggressively enough and that Mr. Sanders would pick a strong treasury secretary with no Wall Street ties to fill in many of the details.
Its astonishing that, on this of all issues, the campaign would need to issue a what-the-candidate-meant-to-say statement. Even then, the campaign has left a lot of essential questions unanswered.
Heres one: What is breaking up the banks meant to accomplish?
From what Mr. Sanders and his campaign have said, you could posit several possibilities: protecting taxpayers, safeguarding the financial system, making the financial sector less concentrated and reducing the financial sectors share of the total economy. Explaining that he wants to do all of these things is not sufficient, because policies differ depending on which goal you prioritize. Regulators working under Dodd-Frank, for example, have gone a long way to addressing the first two issues without breaking up banks, a step that many experts warn may not be worth the costs. If banking-sector concentration is Mr. Sanderss concern, then he should explain why addressing it would justify those costs; after all, countries such as Canada have more concentrated banking systems and yet weathered the financial crisis much better. If, on the other hand, Mr. Sanders wants to shrink the overall financial sector, he must explain how breaking up a few banks into a larger number of medium-size banks would contribute.
Many voters share Mr. Sanderss disdain for high finance and his nostalgia for an economy based more on manufacturing. But such prejudices, whether sound or not, provide an insufficient basis for remaking the worlds largest economy. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton has a banking-sector reform proposal designed to address the highest risks to the financial system that remain after the first round of reform. Mr. Sanders has yet to furnish anything of equivalent rigor. We hope he provides more clarity in next weeks Democratic debate.
read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-sanderss-shocking-ignorance-on-his-core-issue/2016/04/07/83a8e33c-fc34-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html?postshare=3281460088072392&tid=ss_tw
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Mr. Sanders has yet to furnish anything"
Sanders supporters are voting for ideals not solutions. If Bernie were in the White House nothing would change because he has no real depth.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)bigtree
(86,005 posts)Native
(5,943 posts)The board highlights issues it thinks are important and responds to news events, mindful of stands it has taken in previous editorials and principles that have animated Post editorial boards over time. Articles in the news pages sometimes prompt ideas for editorials, but every editorial is based on original reporting. News reporters and editors never contribute to editorial board discussions, and editorial board members dont have any role in news coverage.
TriplD
(176 posts)...but this is standard from the establishment media.
Sanders addresses all these points at length in his standard stump speech.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)... between being big and being a risk to the economy. Bernie rarely, if ever, makes the distinction. He argues that banks need to be broken up simply for being big, whether they are at risk of collapsing or not. He offers little in the way of an argument that merely being a large institution is a legitimate reason for the government to come in and take over.
Native
(5,943 posts)but if you think he does, why don't you do your candidate and us a favor by illuminating the editorial boards at the Washington Post & the New York Daily News because it seems (according to this piece) that Mr. Sander's own post interview "clarifying statement" did nothing of the sort. Don't you find this lack of specifics troubling?
I thought this particular statement was very interesting:
If banking-sector concentration is Mr. Sanderss concern, then he should explain why addressing it would justify those costs; after all, countries such as Canada have more concentrated banking systems and yet weathered the financial crisis much better. If, on the other hand, Mr. Sanders wants to shrink the overall financial sector, he must explain how breaking up a few banks into a larger number of medium-size banks would contribute.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)considered too big to fail? No of course not, the false narrative of the stump speech is that he will create something that already exists. Fail...huge huge lie and fail on his part.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)who thinks that slogans and platitudes are a substitute for policy and governing.
It's become abundantly clear that Sanders is nowhere near competent enough to be President.
Sid
oasis
(49,398 posts)his followers are now too emotionally invested to drop him.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)just another reiteration of "too big to fail"? It's just more shielding of these global, criminal enterprises.
It's also another refrain of "No we can't"
While Iceland completely reorganizes itself en masse at the whiff of corruption, we dig in even harder to maintaining our corruption.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)You would think putting someone on your IL would mean you wouldn't have to see this kind of propaganda.
Oh, well -- trash thread.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)It's not the size of a bank that presents a problem. It's how leveraged the bank is that presents a problem.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid