If it is discovered that some of the big banks have secret overseas accounts...

[kentuck]

...in Panama, Hong Kong, Seychelles, and elsewhere, then the argument is strong to break them up.

As if the collapse in 2008 was not enough, this would be straw that broke the camel's back. There would be more than enough evidence that they should not be permitted to exist in their present form.

So far, it is only rumors. The names have not been made public. But, does anyone really think that the financial industry has been donating to politicians for nothing.

There is much more news about these secret accounts in Germany and France news markets than in the US. The US media appears to want this story to go away. Wonder why?

[DetlefK]

1. 1. The US-media is pissed at the whistleblower. 2. They are confused how to handle this.

How dare he! They are the biggest names in media! The most important ones! And who did the leaker go to? A german newspaper!
Newspaper!!!
"Where are my pearls? I want to clutch them!"




Secondly, the US-media is invested in a non-confrontational narrative of "both sides do it". They treat both sides of an issue equally,
1. because then nobody can actually be angry at you
2. because then you are on the safe side no matter where things are going
3. because it provides endless stories where you can lament about partisanship

But now, the US-media doesn't know how to handle the Panama Papers.
1. Who might get angry at them if they report something?
2. Which way are they supposed to slant their stories? What's the narrative?
3. What if it turns out that there are such things as right and wrong?

[Orrex]

2. How would we break them up, exactly?

I'm very much in favor of this lofty goal, since big banks are the vile essence of modern corruption, but I haven't heard a feasible plan for breaking them up. Certainly not one that has any chance of getting enacted in the current political environment.

[BlueMTexpat]

3. +1! eom

[Bonobo]

4. A bank is a corporation. nt

[seabeckind]

5. Asked and answered in a different thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=350504

In fact, in several instances, it’s the Daily News editors who are bungling the facts in an interview designed to show that Sanders doesn’t understand the fine points of policy. In questions about breaking up big banks, the powers of the Treasury Department and drone strikes, the editors were simply wrong on details.

Take the exchange getting the most attention: Sanders’ supposed inability to describe exactly how he would break up the biggest banks. Sanders said that if the Treasury Department deemed it necessary to do so, the bank would go about unwinding itself as it best saw fit to get to a size that the administration considered no longer a systemic risk to the economy. Sanders said this could be done with new legislation, or through administrative authority under Dodd-Frank.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-daily-news_us_5704779ce4b0a506064d8df5

TRANSCRIPT: Bernie Sanders meets with the Daily News Editorial Board, April 1, 2016

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

[Orrex]

6. Well, it was *discussed* another thread. I don't know about "answered."

Sanders said this could be done with new legislation,

This is another way of saying that it will absolutely never happen while Republicans hold more than, say, 39 Senate seats.

or through administrative authority under Dodd-Frank.

Really? Does the political will exist to exert this authority? Then why hasn't this been done already?

[kentuck]

7. The "political will" might increase if people find out they are involved with overseas accounts?

And it would be difficult without a Democratic Senate, no doubt.

However, banks are composed of many different departments and interests, such as mortgages, credit cards, personal and business loans, and private investments. Those could be separated without much upheaval, in my opinion.

[Orrex]

9. That's an interesting thought.

I'm honestly rather ambivalent about The Panama Papers, because I'm skeptical that anything will be done even if we find out that every member of Congress is personally sitting on a billion dollars worth of secret sex-trafficking revenue.

It's great that this information is out there, but I can't imagine that anyone is really all that surprised about it.

The biggest problem, based on the analysis I've heard so far, seems to be that the money-hiders were working in (generally) full compliance with the ridiculously feeble laws that they (or their proxies) helped to enact. In short, there might not be much illegal going on because the laws are toothless.


But I like the idea of separating banks into their components, each operating from separate pools of capital that can't be intermingled.

[kentuck]

10. The "scandal" may be the lawmakers that make such shenanigans legal.

They may need to be broken up also?

[seabeckind]

16. A member of congress may not be doing it

but I'll betcha the guy who is doing it has a member of congress on speed dial.

[seabeckind]

15. Why hasn't it been done before?

Who was Sec Treas?

Tim Geithner.

What was his background?

The Federal Reserve.

The Fed is the banks.

BTW, I always felt that Tim was a really bad choice. But he fit the profile required.

I doubt very, very much if Bernie's Sec Treas will have such close ties to banking.

[Orrex]

17. I could have bet money ...

That someone would turn this into a Sanders love-fest, because a certain type turns everything into a Sanders love-fest.

Barring a compliant Democratic supermajority in the Senate, what kind of nominee might an imaginary President Sanders get approved?

[bemildred]

8. We broke up the Bell system, we can fucking well break up a bank.

And we can throw the perps in jail too if they try to obstruct. Just watch, it's going to happen now, you can see how it is done.

[Orrex]

11. How did that Bell break-up turn out?

The telecom cartels are bigger and more powerful and more firmly entrenched than ever, and getting more so all the time.

Just watch, it's going to happen now, you can see how it is done.

I would love for that to be correct.

[bemildred]

12. That wasn't the question.

The questions is how it could be done. There are many ways, it's been done before.

When the Bell System was broken up, some people liked it, and some didn't. The point is that that enabled the telecommunications revolution we all now live in.

The wealthy have been curbed before, they always overestimate their own importance.

[Orrex]

13. Well, then that wasn't an answer

If my question was "how can it be done," then your answer is "it can be done in many ways."

Terrific! Let's have some specifics. And it would be helpful to bear in mind the political climate we face today, and how it's nothing at all like the political climate that existed 30+ years ago.

When the Bell System was broken up, some people liked it, and some didn't. The point is that that enabled the telecommunications revolution we all now live in.

Actually, the point is that the break-up resulted in mega-corporations that are much more powerful, influential and monopolistic than good ol' Ma Bell ever was.

So if "the answer" is that we can break up banks like we broke up Bell, then my response is to ask if why we'd want to duplicate that dubious result.

[bemildred]

14. Breaking up Bell resulted in mega-corporations?

How did that work?