• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Democratic Primary Debate V

Status
Not open for further replies.

nib95

Banned
In the long run, all this does is shift risk to less-regulated institutions while doing absolutely fuck all to guarantee the financial solvency of anyone outside of the banking bogeyman.

How does it do that? Talk about a total obfuscation. The smaller the institutes and banks, the easier they would be to regulate, to challenge, to instruct and to penalise. Being smaller does not mean you're going to be less regulated, in-fact it most likely will lend to the complete opposite!
 

mnannola

Member
Bernie and Hillary co-president time! Bernie on wall street and campaign finance, Hillary on foreign policy matters.
 

q_q

Member
The extreme left is as bad as the extreme right, in their reductive views on the economy.

Are you and others just gonna keep advancing a grotesquely facile view of the financial sector?



That there is no actual reason to break up the banks that has anything to do with their ability to tank the economy.

Hahaha. You guys are embarrassing yourselves. Just as well that you dont want to actually engage. Just keep throwing words like facile and reductive at me. Your thesaurus will save you!
 
You realize that General Electric was mere hours away from becoming insolvent because the short term bond markets dried up the morning Lehman failed, right? What would've happened had the Merrill deal not gone through?

We can have the discussion of not having any financial institution pose systemic risk to the economy, but not bailing out the banks is literally the worst course of action the government could've taken in 08/09.
Are you trying to agree with me?

Yes, they had to bail out the banks, and yes, the banks and bankers were going to walk out scott free for everything they screwed up. The argument is that instead of accepting these things as inevitable from now until the fall of man, we take action to prevent that from happening the next time. Break them up. Alternatively, nationalize them!
 
Hillary has a million times more nuanced foreign policy understanding than Sanders.

Sanders shines when he's talking about Wall St.

Hillary's bread and butter is foreign policy
 

kirblar

Member
I'm curious about this. Can you explain more please??
His campaign can't survive a general election (Tax increases for everyone!) His plans' numbers are fuzzy. Nothing about him reads to me as "I actually want to fight in November."
Of course there is, because the smaller they are, the less financial and political potency they possess, and the more dispensable they will be in the long run. A massive bank failing, one of only a few major institutions, is far less manageable and more detrimental, than a much smaller bank failing, and one that is one of many.
Small local community banks are much more influential on individual congresspeople than a set of large national institutions.

Canada's got a more stable economic system than we do and they have a small number of large national banks (w/ smaller local credit unions.)
 

royalan

Member
Bernie looks completely lost here.

His lows on foreign policy and much lower than Hillary's lows on Wall Street.
 

Grover

Banned
i think hillary is easily more book savy about all these categories than bernie is

as far as having tons of trivia facts in her head about all these areas
 

params7

Banned
He should hit continue to hit her on Goldman, but expand the territory to the other donors such as CCA, JP Morgan, Citigroup ect, the dark money her Clinton Foundation has taken in, the weapons that foundation sold in destitute third world countries in order to fund factional strife ect

Wait for Trump vs Clinton.
 
I can see why people see Hillary as the stronger candidate on foreign policy. If I were Bernie I'd talk about cooperating more closely with Pakistan to root out terrorists in order to speed up the eventual withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
He doesn't flesh anything out and constantly goes back to his stump speech.

I'l agree with this and its the real reason I've been linearly losing confidence in him as a candidate over the last six months. I've gone from "support Hillary but like Bernie as a candidate also" to "not sure if Bernie would actually be a good president"

Not that I would even consider not voting for him if he gets the nom
 
Hahaha. You guys are embarrassing yourselves. Just as well that you dont want to actually engage. Just keep throwing words like facile and reductive at me. Your thesaurus will save you!

Man, if you can't use those words in everyday conversation without looking at a thesaurus, that's fucking sad.
 

Esch

Banned
"the United States cannot do it alone"

So you're saying we need a... Coalition of the willing?

This sounds familiar.
 
It's not an answer. It's a desperate attempt to deflect from the fact that he has no real knowledge on the subject.
It is true he does not have the experience in toppling foreign governments so extremists can fill the power vacuum like Hillary does.
 

harSon

Banned
Why is Hillary always smiling when there's no reason to smile? It's so off putting.

It's sad how many arguments against her have absolutely no relevance to policy or one's ability to lead (raising voice, shrill voice, her laugh, smiling, etc)
 

richsena

Banned
I don't love Sanders' response to the Middle East conflict. I think he's being naive to say the influencers in the region (beyond Iraq) will head up a coalition on the ground against IS.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Bernie, you can't even talk coherently about foreign policy for more than 30 seconds without mentioning the Iraq War vote. Talking about judgement.
 
Hahaha. You guys are embarrassing yourselves. Just as well that you dont want to actually engage. Just keep throwing words like facile and reductive at me. Your thesaurus will save you!

You want to start to engage on how ignoring derivatives and credit swaps in favor of Jailing the Bankers and Breaking 'em Up will somehow prevent another recession or shift anything back in the favor of The People when the last, and deepest one in 80 years, had EVERYTHING to do with those first two things?

The smaller the institutes and banks, the easier they would be to regulate, to challenge, to instruct and to penalise.

Except, again, the "break up the banks" concept does nothing to regulate the institutes in question beyond limiting their size.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom