Bloomberg for President?

[I Am The Scum]

If it happens any time after inauguration, Trump and republicans will blame it on the new president
If it happens during the lame duck time, Trump and republicans will blame it on the fear of the new president
If it happens before the election, Trump and republicans will blame it on uncertainty that the democrat could be elected.
It it happened tomorrow, Trump and republicans would blame it on Sanders leading the primary race

Remember rule 1: whatever bad happens, it's always the democrat's fault.

Trump blamed Monday's stock market on Tuesday's Democratic debate.

 

[pgwenthold]

Trump blamed Monday's stock market on Tuesday's Democratic debate.

That's not the problem. The problem is the number of morons who actually believe him.

 

[3point14]

I would certainly hesitate to pin the anti-capitalist label on anyone who doesn't self-identify as such,

but you're very happy for there to be private institutions so vital to the running of the USA that you would absolutely have to break all the rules of capitalism if that company fails?

That's pretty anti-capitalist, isn't it?



Or you'd let the USA fail completely if one of these essential, private, institutions failed? Say it's an insurance company, nothing moves if it isn't insured. So you're either anti capitalist (being perfectly prepared to prop up failing private institutions with public money) Or you'd let the USA literally cease to be a country as it went to rack and ruin because the only supplier of x has gone to the wall.


It's one or the other.


Me, I think not being in that situation in the first place is the best idea. your attempt to scare the world with Bernies perfectly sensible policy is pretty weak. It probably works on some idiots though.

 

[Segnosaur]

The sky will not fall if institutions vital to the health, safety and security of the USA are split up to allow redundancy - and, indeed to allow capitalism to actually happen.

I assume, by your desire to have vital institutions be literally too big to be allowed to fail, that you're somewhat anti-capitalist. am I right?

It may sound good to break up large banks to prevent one failure from crashing the whole system.

My concern is that by breaking them up, each smaller institution now has less resources to weather any problems. And if one of these smaller banks go down it can still cause a massive failure.

In Canada, we have taken a different tact... we have 5 major banks. And if any one of them failed it would probably crash our economy. But, we regulate the heck out of them to keep them from doing anything too risky, and their large size lends a certain amount of stability.

Personally, I think that would be the better pattern to follow in the U.S.... don't worry if banks get too big, just make sure they can't do anything too risky. (Admittedly a problem when you have one party dedicated to destroying any regulations that exist.)

 

[Trebuchet]

I agree and said as much here in the thread. Bloomberg isn't going to give his money and organization to any of the other candidates, least of all Bernie.

What I'm hoping he'll do is just keep running anti-Trump ads.

 

[3point14]

It may sound good to break up large banks to prevent one failure from crashing the whole system.

My concern is that by breaking them up, each smaller institution now has less resources to weather any problems. And if one of these smaller banks go down it can still cause a massive failure.

Yeah, but not as much as the one, single entity that can perform the task going under. And, as stated, at that point, it may as well be publicly owned because, sure as eggs, the Fed is going to prop it up.

Capitalism only works if failures are allowed to happen.

Any situation in which the state props up a private institution is not capitalism.

In Canada, we have taken a different tact... we have 5 major banks. And if any one of them failed it would probably crash our economy. But, we regulate the heck out of them to keep them from doing anything too risky, and their large size lends a certain amount of stability.

Personally, I think that would be the better pattern to follow in the U.S.... don't worry if banks get too big, just make sure they can't do anything too risky. (Admittedly a problem when you have one party dedicated to destroying any regulations that exist.)

The bolded bit made me laugh.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

"X will happen and Trump's reaction and/or the reaction to Trump will be the same as it was for other Presidents in the past" hasn't worked yet. He might even break "It's the economy stupid."

If the economy hits the kind of downturn that would make or break a Presidency, I question whether it will make or break Trump.

The question isn't whether or not it'll "break" Trump, but if it has to happen then what is the best case scenario for when it should happen.

 

[d4m10n]

but you're very happy for there to be private institutions so vital to the running of the USA that you would absolutely have to break all the rules of capitalism if that company fails?

Where are you getting supposed rules these from?

I don't think banks became significantly less capitalist when the FDIC^WP was stood up. Generally speaking, government safety nets serve to increase rather than decrease mobility of labor and capital in free markets.

...your attempt to scare the world with Bernies perfectly sensible policy is pretty weak. It probably works on some idiots though.

Thank god bank runs have never been caused by a few panicky idiots.

 

[Segnosaur]

It may sound good to break up large banks to prevent one failure from crashing the whole system.

My concern is that by breaking them up, each smaller institution now has less resources to weather any problems. And if one of these smaller banks go down it can still cause a massive failure.

Yeah, but not as much as the one, single entity that can perform the task going under.

But lets say you break up a bank with $10 billion in assets/deposits into 10 banks with $1 billion... Granted, a failure of one of those $1 billion banks won't be as harmful, but its quite possible that whatever caused that one bank to fail will spread to the 9 other banks anyways. (Only now, because they are smaller, they have less resources to draw on.)

In Canada, we have taken a different tact... we have 5 major banks. And if any one of them failed it would probably crash our economy. But, we regulate the heck out of them to keep them from doing anything too risky, and their large size lends a certain amount of stability.

Personally, I think that would be the better pattern to follow in the U.S.... don't worry if banks get too big, just make sure they can't do anything too risky. (Admittedly a problem when you have one party dedicated to destroying any regulations that exist.)

The bolded bit made me laugh.[/QUOTE]
Why was that funny?

Canada's regulations prevented the banks from doing stuff that was too risky. None of them needed to get bailed out after the 2008 recession. They weathered the financial downturn just fine.

 

[Segnosaur]

but you're very happy for there to be private institutions so vital to the running of the USA that you would absolutely have to break all the rules of capitalism if that company fails?

Where are you getting these from?

I don't think banks became significantly less capitalist when the FDIC^WP was stood up. Generally speaking, government safety nets serve to increase rather than decrease mobility of labor and capital in free markets.

Keep in mind that after the 2008 recession, there was more than just the FDIC. The FDIC deals with individual deposits.

The TARP bailout on the other hand was directed at the financial institutions themselves... purchasing of bank shares, loans, buying "toxic" assets. So the government was covering for organizations that caused the financial problems in the first place.

 

[3point14]

But lets say you break up a bank with $10 billion in assets/deposits into 10 banks with $1 billion... Granted, a failure of one of those $1 billion banks won't be as harmful, but its quite possible that whatever caused that one bank to fail will spread to the 9 other banks anyways. (Only now, because they are smaller, they have less resources to draw on.)

The "It's quite possible" is extremely speculative. I think that's a really, really weak argument, sorry.

AIG went to the wall cos it was managed by idiots who wouldn't listen to expert. I would hope that that sort of thing isn't catching. anything that is catching is just as likely to level a massive, as opposed to a very big, institution.

And, let's be realistic, the question arises that, if an institution is utterly vital to the financial, military, and social security of a country, why is it in private hands? But that's a different argument.

Why was that funny?

Because banks will always, always be on the make. It appears to be a fundamental truth of the universe.

Add into that that you're always only one election cycle from someone like Bloomberg purchasing policy and undoing any checks and balances because 'what could go wrong?' and it's a recipe for utter disaster.

Canada's regulations prevented the banks from doing stuff that was too risky. None of them needed to get bailed out after the 2008 recession. They weathered the financial downturn just fine.

And that works in Canada. I can't see it working in the USA, not with all that winning (TM) to be had from making bucketloads of cash

How many of them are 'too big to fail'

 

[d4m10n]

Keep in mind that after the 2008 recession, there was more than just the FDIC. The FDIC deals with individual deposits.

My apologies for making those things seem connected. My point was that when the FDIC was created (New Deal era) it didn't make the U.S. hardly any less capitalist. The basic forces of the markets were untouched, other than short term depositor panic.

...the government was covering for organizations that caused the financial problems in the first place.

Indeed so, but that intervention wouldn't've been any less necessary if a similar overall volume of toxic derivative assets had been issued by many more but much smaller financial institutions.

 

[Belz...]

How many of them are 'too big to fail'

All of them.

 

[Segnosaur]

But lets say you break up a bank with $10 billion in assets/deposits into 10 banks with $1 billion... Granted, a failure of one of those $1 billion banks won't be as harmful, but its quite possible that whatever caused that one bank to fail will spread to the 9 other banks anyways. (Only now, because they are smaller, they have less resources to draw on.)

AIG went to the wall cos it was managed by idiots who wouldn't listen to expert. I would hope that that sort of thing isn't catching. anything that is catching is just as likely to level a massive, as opposed to a very big, institution.

But AIG wasn't the only financial institution that had its hand in the cookie jar... Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Bank of America, JP Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearns, etc. all received TARP bailouts and/or ended up failing.

With so many companies needing assistance, its hard to think that a broken-up AIG would have been able to partly survive.

And, let's be realistic, the question arises that, if an institution is utterly vital to the financial, military, and social security of a country, why is it in private hands? But that's a different argument.

Because governments can be just as fallible as the private sector?

Could you imagine what would happen if Trump managed to get his tiny little hands on a public banking system?

Because banks will always, always be on the make. It appears to be a fundamental truth of the universe.

Yes, banks are greedy. So are car companies, retailers, plumbers, candlestick makers, etc.

Add into that that you're always only one election cycle from someone like Bloomberg purchasing policy and undoing any checks and balances because 'what could go wrong?' and it's a recipe for utter disaster.

For what its worth... although Bloomberg had criticized banking regulations in the past, his current policy is to strengthen some of the financial regulations that were cut back under Trump... bolstering the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, dealing with predatory auto loans, etc.

Canada's regulations prevented the banks from doing stuff that was too risky. None of them needed to get bailed out after the 2008 recession. They weathered the financial downturn just fine.

And that works in Canada. I can't see it working in the USA, not with all that winning (TM) to be had from making bucketloads of cash

I never claimed it would work in the U.S. (In fact, I strongly hinted that it wouldn't when I mentioned how the Republicans never met a regulation they didn't want to cut.)

I just said it it would have been the "best pattern to follow".

How many of them are 'too big to fail'

In Canada? I figure if any of our big-5 banks fail, it would probably cause a major recession in Canada. They make up a major portion of the stock market, they hold hundreds of millions of dollars from private investors. And one bank failing would probably cause a run on the other remaining banks.

 

[dudalb]

I've been saying this for the last three years. The Democratic Party's only hope is to find a charismatic candidate who can woo the broad church of Democratic Party voters and enough independents and get them to turn out and vote.

The current collection of candidates aren't looking promising and Bloomberg's involvement is pretty much President Trump's wet dream.

Honestly, I can see Ivanka winning in 2024 and 2028 at this rate

Come on donks, get your act together.

I have to disagree there. I think Bernie is Trump;s wet dream.
He is Jeremy Corbin redux..as his starting his victory speech after the Nevada primary with "Comrades" shows. He is just handing the GOP ammunition.

 

[applecorped]

hope and cha..........nevermind

 

[carlitos]

Today’s mail seems ill-timed. 5 pieces for Bloomberg.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The Orange One is enjoying himself.

Mini Mike Bloomberg just “quit” the race for President. I could have told him long ago that he didn’t have what it takes, and he would have saved himself a billion dollars, the real cost. Now he will pour money into Sleepy Joe’s campaign, hoping to save face. It won’t work! [...]

Mini Mike Bloomberg will now FIRE Tim O’Brien, and all of the fools and truly dumb people who got him into this MESS. This has been the worst, and most embarrassing, experience of his life...and now on to Sleepy Joe!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Here in Florida there's going to be able to schedule in an entire primetime block in the freespace left over from no more Bloomberg ads.

 

[Segnosaur]

Here in Florida there's going to be able to schedule in an entire primetime block in the freespace left over from no more Bloomberg ads.

I wonder if Bloomberg has planned for a contingency in the case where he has dropped out but already has purchased ad space (if that ever happens).

Maybe he has some alternative ads available that he could switch to, of the "Trump is a bad president" without the additional message "vote for me instead".