we could bring back the glass-steagall act.he could at least separate our deposits, our taxpayer deposits from this so that it does not come down on us again, which we will have another crisis, and then also from the standpoint of individuals. one of the things i talk about in this book a lot are these power alliances and how individuals work together, sometimes collaboratively to do something good, and we as individuals on the ground need to be able to collaborate more and establish our own alliances and not just say washington is not doing it, which i say a lot, but also we need to do things on the ground. we need to support community banks or regional institutions or friends and family, and we need to not do what these families, these individuals, from the morgans to the rockefellers to the kennedys to the bushes, what they did to each other, which is they mutually enforced each other's power, and we need to do that through citizenship from the ground up. i wonder what they have in doing that, in making that happen, when the

i think we have to bring back glass-steagall.olker rule is so ridden with holes, it is worse than swiss cheese. >> efforts to bring blue -- bring back class steagall would surely be just as riddled with holes. >> that is a defeatist proposition. >> or realistic. >> anything that we try will fail because of the power of the big tank. let me just say, the big banks are already being subsidized indirectly in terms of major depositors, major lenders assuming that they are too big to fail and therefore far less risky. that is it tangible direct subsidy that will make the big tanks bigger and potentially more vulnerable to failing. >> the word subsidy has not been used, but there is no question that it would appear that investors would benefit tremendously from the low interest rate policy of the federal reserve. is she making a dangerous trade-off by prioritizing inflation over employment? .> i don't think that she is the federal reserve board has two mandates under the law. price stability and employment. there is very little evidenc

one of the things that has been discussed is breaking up the big banks, restoring glass-steagall -- there were amendments to the nature during dodd-frank. now, there are bills in congress. i am wondering if you can talk about why they are making traction then and why we should be discussing that. >> breaking up the banks is entirely a reasonable idea. i do have questions for those who ask it. aid to what side? if we are going to break institution so no one institution is big enough to threaten us, then they all have to be no bigger than lehman brothers was in september of 2008 because that failure was one of the precipitating causes. secondly, how are we going to do it? who is going to buy them? i don't understand what the mechanism is. there is the volcker rule. as i look at the causes of this, i think 100% securitization is a big part of the problem. nothing in glass-steagall would've prevented countrywide from making all those lousy loans and securitizing the 100%. nothing would've stopped a idea from screwing up as badly as it did -- aig from screwing up as badly as it did with deriva

no major national bank panics why was that because in thirty four thirty five thirty three glass steagall was passed and thirty four reforms of commodity trading were passed we set up the c.c. in thirty three and we regulated the banks we also know that capitalism periodic lee fails or periodic and spotters crashes and we know from looking at countries around the world where government says we will be the employer of last resort when capitalism fails that the impact of those cows those failures of capital system are minimized on the people so on we saw this in the thirty's in the united states we see it all you know all across europe right now what do you think about this ok when you talk about the thirty's and so forth the normal response is look but wait a minute nineteen twenty nine hundred twenty one we had a huge economic recession in the united states and we had a president in there harding who just let the whole thing happen that's all and he didn't have any government intervention and as a result we everything was fine we'll think about that. what harding did harding campaigned on

no major national bank panics why was that because in thirty four thirty five thirty three glass steagall was passed and thirty four reforms of commodity trading were passed we set up the f.c.c. in thirty three and we regulated the banks we also know that capitalism periodic lee fails or periodical spotter's crashes and we know from looking at countries around the world where government says we will be the employer of last resort when capitalism fails that the impact of those those failures of capital system are minimized on the people so i mean we saw this in the thirty's in the united states we see it all you know all across europe right now what do you think about this ok when you talk about the thirty's and so forth the normal response is look but wait a minute nineteen twenty nine hundred twenty one we had a huge economic recession in the united states and we had a president in there harding who just let the whole thing happen that's all and he didn't have any government intervention and as a result we everything was fine we'll think about that. what harding did harding campaigned on

no major national bank panics why was that because in thirty four thirty five thirty three glass steagall was passed and thirty four reforms of commodity trading were passed we set up the c.c. in thirty three and we regulated the banks we also know that capitalism periodic lee fails or periodical spotter's crashes and we know from looking at countries around the world where government says we will be the employer of last resort when capitalism fails that the impact of those cows those failures of capital system are minimized on the people so on we saw this in the thirty's in the united states we see it all you know all across europe right now what do you think about this ok when you talk about the thirty's and so forth the normal response is look but wait a minute nineteen twenty nine hundred twenty one we had a huge economic recession in the united states and we had a president in there harding who just let the whole thing happen that's all and he didn't have any government intervention and as a result we everything was fun we'll think about that. what harding did harding campaigned on a

no major national bank panics why was that because in thirty four thirty five thirty three glass steagall was passed and thirty four reforms of commodity trading were passed we set up the f.c.c. in thirty three and we regulated the banks we also know that capitalism periodic lee fails or periodic least waters crashes and we know from looking at countries around the world where government says we will be the employer of last resort when capitalism fails that the impact of those those failures of capital system are minimized on the people so on we saw this in the thirty's in the united states we see it all you know all across europe right now what do you think about this ok when you talk about the thirty's and so forth the normal response is little but wait a minute nineteen twenty nine hundred twenty one we had a huge economic recession in the united states and we had a president in there harding who just let the whole thing happen that's all and he didn't have any government intervention and as a result we everything was fine we'll think about that. what harding did harding campaigned on

no major national bank panics why was that because in thirty four thirty five thirty three glass steagall was passed and thirty four reforms of commodity trading were passed we set up the c.c. in thirty three and we regulated the banks. and we know from looking at countries around the world where government says we will be the employer of last resort when capitalism fails that the impact of those cows those failures of capital system are minimized on the people so on we saw this in the thirty's in the united states we see it all you know all across europe right now what do you think about this ok when you talk about the thirty's and so forth the normal response is look but wait a minute nineteen twenty nine hundred twenty one we had a huge economic recession in the united states and we had a president in there harding who just let the whole thing happen that's all and he didn't have any government intervention and as a result we everything was fine we'll think about that. what harding did harding campaigned on a platform of less government and business more business and government in the

the sharks on wall street to show them the population back in the markets they got rid of glass steagall they brought about the commodity futures modernization act which decriminalized gambling on a lot of these derivative contracts and they brought back a whole new group of folks to set them up for another slaughter and this right now you've got a big set up for another massive slaughter and you know this charming process goes on i think bernie madoff mean bernie made off was really a keen student of chumming in that he would constantly deliver one percent a month returns the genius of bernie made up was that his returns were great they weren't but they weren't super spectacular they were just very good levon twelve percent a year consistently markets up markets down that was his chum that chum line without telling anybody there was a huge ponzi scheme similarly in the u.k. in the u.s. and around the world around europe it is an enormous ponzi scheme built on debt that can't possibly ever be paid back but as long as they get the e.c.b. in the federal reserve and the bank of england to t

of the sharks on wall street to charm the population back into the markets they got rid of glass steagall they brought about the commodity futures modernization act which decriminalize gambling on a lot of these derivatives contracts and they brought back a whole new group of folks to set them up for another slaughter and this so right now you've got a big set up for another massive slaughter and you know this charming process goes on i think bernie madoff mean bernie made off was really a keen student of chumming in that he would constantly deliver one percent a month returns the genius of bernie made up was that his returns were great they weren't but they weren't super spectacular they were just very good levon twelve percent a year consistently markets up markets down that was his chum that chum line without selling anybody that was a huge ponzi scheme similarly in the u.k. in the u.s. and around the world around europe it is an enormous ponzi scheme built on debt that can't possibly ever be paid back but as long as they get the e.c.b. in the federal reserve in the bank of england to

the sharks on wall street to show them the population back in the markets they got rid of glass steagall they brought about the commodity futures modernization act which decriminalize gambling on a lot of these derivative contracts and they brought back a whole new group of folks to set them up for another slaughter and this so right now you've got a big set up for another massive slaughter and you know this charming process goes on i think bernie madoff mean bernie madoff was really a keen student of chumming in that he would constantly deliver one percent a month returns the genius of bernie made up was that his returns were great they weren't but they weren't super spectacular they were just very good levon twelve percent a year consistently markets up markets down that was his chum the chum line without telling anybody there was a huge ponzi scheme similarly in the u.k. in the u.s. and around the world around europe it is an enormous ponzi scheme built on debt that can't possibly ever be paid back but as long as they get the e.c.b. in the federal reserve in the bank of england to thr

winthrop got a front-page piece in "the new york times" to push glass-steagall which was the act in 1933 that separated speculative activities of all these deposits that now 84% are the big six banks and fdic insured by the government, and he promoted it and the action was going back and forth to washington to get the senate and to get senator carter glass to make that build even stronger than it was going to be to include the morgan bank which was also one of his competitors so that didn't hurt. there's so much of interest going on but the point is that time with a populist what was going with fdr a very, very, very skilled politician understand the language and getting certain friends like aldrich and also james pro-consumer national city bank at the time to work with them. they separated their banks before the legislation. so that was something that happened to that of the country, helped the bankers, helped fdr. that lasted, that stability in baking and the separation lasted for about 40 or so years before in the '70s things started disintegrating and there's a lot of reasons it betw

the sharks on wall street to show them the population back in the markets they got rid of glass steagall they brought about the commodity futures modernization act which decriminalized gambling on a lot of these derivative contracts and they brought back a whole new group of folks to set them up for another slaughter and this so right now you've got a big set up for another massive slaughter and you know this charming process goes on to think of bernie madoff mean bernie made off was really a keen student of chumming in that he would constantly deliver one percent a month returns the genius of bernie made up was that his returns were great they weren't but they weren't super spectacular they were just very good levon twelve percent a year consistently markets up markets down that was his chum the chum line without telling anybody there was a huge ponzi scheme similarly in the u.k. in the u.s. and around the world around europe it is an enormous ponzi scheme built on debt that can't possibly ever be paid back but as long as they get the e.c.b. the federal reserve. when the bank of england