talk about the free market i mean would you support legislation like reinstating legend like glass steagall and if not how do you prevent monopolies from forming or do you think that's all about i do think about those things and i think glass steagall would be something you know looking at it. it seems like a commonsense thing to do but i will tell you that even the most common sense solutions end up having unintended consequences and now i'm talking about. the fact . mark to market accounting was was brought about. and i'm forgetting i'm forgetting the piece of legislation. but as a result of enron mark to market accounting was legislation that passed that seemed like the most practical thing in the world to do and yet that was a direct contributor to the collapse in two thousand and eight because of. because of securities having to be marked at five cents on the dollar because there was one trade at the end of december for hundreds of thousands of dollars in a multi-trillion dollar market for five cents on the dollar and now all assets have to be. have to be graded at five cents as oppose

there are certainly people who stand for the full repeal of glass-steagall. there are huge political fears about doing that, but i do think some form of breaking up extremely large banks and disallowing reckless trading activity is noteworthy. i do think the thing about compensation and deferring is essential. but does it fix the problem completely? i do not think so. the truth is that if you swing for the fence in year one and your bonus, things do not work out, you can still leave and go to a hedge fund or go do something else. i do think that the law actually has to become stricter. i think greed and swinging for the fences will always be around. it is impossible to stop. so i think you actually need to change the root cause, which is if someone gambles with client money or bets against their client, that person needs to potentially go to jail or have some disincentive that is so reat that if you're reckless person, there are only two or three things they think about before they endanger the whole house. laws have to change in addition to compensation. but

clinton's administration he was he was he was not directly in charge of the destabilization of glass steagall but he was overseeing a position when that occurred so it is a very interesting that he ends up taking these really and i actually said he's only allowed to do because glass steagall is and now he's supposed to be in charge of making sure that. gets the woman in charge of actually making sure that all of these rules of dodd frank go through let's talk about lanny breuer former head of the justice department criminal division now is joining a prominent law firm that represents some of the biggest names on wall street so now we're talking about people who have left the government and are working yes exactly because it's a revolving door right now it's just going around and around when you're going out the back end so yeah we're going to jeb bush. what's the problem with this get. so it's one of the examples so if we're talking about the banks that and bankrupting our economy lanny breuer was the guy at the justice department who was actually supposed to bring these people to justice he

the first thing, in 1999 there was a thing called the glass-steagall act separated commercial banks from investment banks. it was repealed. in 2000, there was a thing called the commodity futures modernization act which essentially took complex securities called derivatives and deregulated them. it allowed the trading of derivatives to move off exchanges and basically into the dark. the third thing was, a thing called the net capital rule was overturned. hat that did was allowed banks to increase their leverage - if you have $1 you can effectively lev it up by taking bets 10, 20, 30 times the amount by borrowing extra money. from the early 2000's to the mid 2000's, banks took leverage from five to one up to 35 to one. with these three things, which were all regulatory in nature and all lobbied for by the banking industry, it became very clear that as a professor said, the old model of long-term greed, which was the motto goldman sachs had for many years, which essentially said if we do right by clients over the long term and maybe turn away business in the short term which can affect our

there are certainly people who stand for the full repeal of glass-steagall. there are huge political fears about doing that, but i do think some form of breaking up extremely large banks and disallowing reckless trading activity is noteworthy. i do think the thing about compensation and deferring is essential. but does it fix the problem completely? i do not think so. the truth is that if you swing for the fence in year one and your bonus, things do not work out, you can still leave and go to a hedge fund or go do something else. i do think that the law actually has to become stricter. i think greed and swinging for the fences will always be around. it is impossible to stop. so i think you actually need to change the root cause, which is if someone gambles with client money or bets against their client, that person needs to potentially go to jail or have some disincentive that is so great that if you're reckless person, there are only two or three things they think about before they endanger the whole house. addition to change in to compensation. but not irre

in fairness a lot of financial troubles could be blamed on the clinton years for the glass-steagall.n you cut taxes for rich people and leave a mess behind in the world's worst dine and dash, and then thinking that cheney had everything under control and never once balancing a budget, when you could look beyond stem cell research, calling torture enhance interrogation, and having the fewest press conferences of any president, and when you get over your petty liberal grievances about withdrawing america from the missile treaty cutting veterans healthcare by billions, cutting pell grant loans for students. making corporations in charge of their own clean up. opposing expanded healthcare for national guard families. wearing the flight suit. if you can rise above your childish hang ups for the pat dillon debt cover up. letting baghdad be looted warrantless wiretaps, only testifying if he could do it with with cheney beside him and trading sammy sosa, billions of dollars through halliburton through crony contracts not allowing fallen soldiers coffining be photographed because it's bad p.r

if we could go back in time and reverse glass-steagall being repealed, reverse the derivatives being deregulated, reverse the leverage issues, in my opinion i do not think we would have had this scandal as bad. the financial crisis could have still occurred, but i do not think it would have occurred on the same scale. alternately i think the way you fix it now is point the finger at politicians and regulators and say, we elected you to understand what is going on. if the system is too complex to understand you need to make the system less complex. if you are being corrupted or unable to be objective because people are giving you money and lobbying and funding your campaigns, the a left rate needs to vote those people out of office and say, this senator is no longer objective. this regulator running the sec no longer understands what is going on. i have said the public is not more tuned into this issue. my biggest goal in the book was really to write this book not for a wall street audience or anyone who knows anything about finance, but to write it for people who know nothing about f

there are certainly people who stand for the full repeal of glass-steagall. there are huge political fears about doing that, but i do think some form of breaking up extremely large banks and disallowing reckless trading activity is noteworthy. i do think the thing about compensation and deferring is essential. but does it fix the problem completely? i do not think so. the truth is that if you swing for the fence in year one and your bonus, things do not work out, you can still leave and go to a hedge fund or go do something else. i do think that the law actually has to become stricter. i think greed and swinging for the fences will always be around. it is impossible to stop. so i think you actually need to change the root cause, which is if someone gambles with client money or bets against their client, that person needs to potentially go to jail or have some disincentive that is so great that if you're reckless person, there are only two or three things they think about before they endanger the whole house. laws have to change in addition to compensation. bu

robert rubin, who spent a quarter century at goldman sachs, embraced finance capital by appealing glass/steagallns, by pushing through the north american free-trade agreement, cutting welfare and declaring an end to big government. president obama wanted to cut entitlements and released a new budget that embraces cuts to social security and medicare, leaving liberal members of congress anded a ka si groups howling that the president's proposal would chip away at the bedrock of social protections created by the new deal and the great society. obama is doing this even after wall street dramatically shifted its allegiance last year, throwing its weight behind mitt romney, who raised three times as much money from wall street the president did, was a far cry from 2008 when obama was wall street's man. the big story of the 2012 election was supposed to be the rise of what's been called the coalition of the ascendant, the younger, more rangers, well-educated voters who delivered obama a second term and who supposedly would enable democrats to pursue a progressive agenda. but so far, at least, that mes

but had i been, i suspect i would have opposed dodd-frank and supported the restoration of the glass-steagall act. i believe regulatory solutions always end up being burdensome. a friend of mine in maine sent me a picture of him sitting next to a stack this high of regulations at a community bank as a result of dodd-frank that they're going to have to abide by. this is a community bank. bangor savings bank did not cause the financial crisis of 2008. and yet they're having to bear the burden of these regulations which are expensive, which are drying up credit for their customers, and which yobl are going -- i don't believe are going to contribute to a solution. another point on this -- on the anti-federalist side is that deficits do matter. deficits do matter. we cannot continue to burden our children with the costs of government. in a hypercompetitive world every tax dollar counts, every regulation must be smart and minimally intrusive. this is a new world we're in. we're competing not just with companies around this country but all over the world and they want our jobs. understanding these d