. >> joining us to delve deeper into the issues on iran and syria, curt volcker, a former u.n. ambassador to nato is in washington, d.c. ires foreign minister will have a chance to speak directly to secretary of state john kerry today. how do they even begin this conversation? >> the fact is the conversation has begun a long time ago. we've been having these p5 plus one talks and this meeting today is another in that framework for five, six, seven years now. i don't remember the exact date. there have been a number of proposals, they have gradually moved in the direction of iran continuing to have a civilian nuclear program. originally the demands was no enrichment whatsoever. iran has never really grasped this to lock in a program in cooperation with the rest of the international community. they've insisted on a unilateral right to enrich uranium to levels that really can only be explained by a nuclear weapons program. that's where iran needs to bring something new to the table. the tone is great, there is a change. we have to welcome that and explore it, but we have to see ne

. >> paul volcker, saw the film and his wife who is secretary said it was wonderful.as great to hear. >> greenspan? >> no reply yet. i'm not sure i will hear. >> did you reach out to him. >> i reached out both to greenspan and bernanke for interviews and was declined. >> bernanke, did he, did he reach out? has he seen it? >> i don't know. i know a lot of people at the fed have seen the film. so i would assume he's, definitely heard about it. whether he has seen it or not i don't know. i'm not sure i will. >> what's their takeaway, people at fed. >> people in the film commented that they might think it is a little critical in someplaces. >> a little critical? >> a little too critical. some. people in the fed are critics themselves. charlie prosser. >> peter fisher to a certain extent. >> some of the fed officials are critical of these policies. even janet yellen was critical of some of the policies. >> wouldn't janet yellen, this is where i think you messed up a little bit it is a great film. i'm being a pain in the rear. janet yellen would have done everything bernank

. >> i think you're going to see a volcker rule adopted very soon. it takes a lot of regulators. they were trying to accommodate the financial system. i think it will be a solid voiker rule. i don't think it will harm what goes on. the international -- the british are doing something similar with their ring fencing. that one will work. they're making them smaller, as hank pointed out, we give them the power even by making them shrink in size or by reducing a functio function. but reducing them in principle. one reason, we spent two years asking bank of america and wells fargo and j.p. morgan, please, can you buy this bank. we didn't want to let it go. to some extent, they have a legitimate complaint. buying countrywide was ken lewis' own idea. we did pressure them to buy merrill-lynch and morgan chase to buy bear stearns. i don't think sides alone was the problem. anybody who thinks that the banks have a lot of political clout didn't watch our legislation. every -- on every issue when there was a dispute between smaller banks and big banks, the small

the volcker rule with small businesses and people. >> you say the number one thing that needs to be fixide fix the too big to fail problem. >> simpler banks are safer banks and there are still a lot of things we can do like the volcker rule, like closing the derivatives loopholes and i will say that jerry gensler who has been doing a lot of great things around reform has gone a long way to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction as warren buffett called them that blew up our financial system and there are ways that banks can trade in foreign markets and because foreign markets are still interconnected that can come home and bite us. >> remember the $700 billion bank bailout by hank paulson who was on the "today" show and he said this about the state of the financial system five years later. >> banks made mistakes. they've come a long way. the banks are better capitalized, better regulated and they have much, much better risk control, but the root cause of every crisis lies in flawed government policies. >> is he right? >> lies in flawed government policies. i would agree that we need

. >> but even so, you had the kind of late-breaking volcker rule put in there.use there is still a way that people, if they're outraged enough, can have some effect. the volcker still needs to be written and there are 22 regulators fighting over it. >> to me, the elements of the collapse are about -- are fundamentally about power, more than they're about technical -- about regulations. like too much power and wealth concentrated and also psychology. one of the fascinating thing about reading the crisis literature is the way in which this kind of crazy, ego maniacal thinking got all these banks into thinking they could take whatever risks they wanted to. and you wrote this amazing piece about dick fuld, who's the most chastened about these folks. >> most people on wall street have forgotten about dick fuld. one group who hasn't are professors who study management. and there's a big paper in the journal of management inquiry, on dick fuld's narcissism. and scholars think there are two kinds of narcissism. and it's rampant on wall street. it can be a force for good

we don't even have a volcker rule.remember when we had the dodd-frank act that was supposed to clean up all of this? and a piece of it was kind of a watered-down glass-steagall. glass-steagall was the old 1930s rule that said you had to split your commercial banking operations from your, basically your casino, betting operations. and -- >> you couldn't bet with my deposit. >> you can't bet with commercially-insured deposits. but we couldn't even get the watered-down version of glass-steagall in the form of the volcker rule. it's still not there. why isn't that there? because you've got a huge, powerful, wall street lobbying machine, a lot of money coming from wall street that influenced politicians, even democrat politicians. this is not a matter of partisan politics. everybody is guilty. and the money is still determining what the rules of the game are going to be. >> and these are the people who are taking in most of the income produced by the recovery. >> not only they -- they're taking in most of the income produce

volcker: japan's been almost flat on its back.ope's bn growgvery slowly until recently, particularly with a hh level of unemployment. so if yolook at thworld as a whole while we were expanding, there was very ready availability of goods. when inflation rises in one country those citizens have the option of buying from abroad. there was a lot of emphasis on expenditure restraint. and that was particularly strong during the 1990s. there was a great debate at the beginning of the clinton administration about how to deal with what was perceived as a relatively small recession, but nonetheless a recession, what to do. there were those who wanted to spend their way out and others said no let's have budgetary restraint. that will be better for the economy, that will keep interest rates down, it will tend to restrain inflationary pressures and, in the long run we'll be better off. and that was i think fortunately, the approach that was adopted. and lo and behold, the economy did so well that we got some productivity increases, that revenu

there is no volcker rule. dodd/frank isn't completed.obody knows what the rules of the road are going to be. >> and that's a bad thing, i take it. >> well, i think it's always good to know where you're going. and we as a country don't know where we're going in a lot of different places, especially in the financial industry. >> would you still say the banks need to be split apart? >> i think i would say the same thing i said before that if the way the regulations come down do not allow entrepreneurship and do not allow people in the financial industry making mistakes. then, i think -- and because of risking taxpayer money, i think that's going to make our financial industry completely in effective. and we really -- in the financial industry led the growth in the whole world. we help convert capitalist countries. more than 1 billion people have come out of poverty into the middle class. which is helping everybody. >> you could do that with the investment banks. you could have the commercial banks going back to doing medical repoortgages an

we talked a bit about the volcker rule and the interaction between the volcker rule and fed policy. >ake on liquidity, does that limit the effectiveness of monetary policy? that's an issue that's been out there. >> okay. >> some guy calls me an idiot, he says on twitter about the -- >> you're an idiot for reading the twitter. >> why are you reading the twitter? >> why are you an idiot? >> he was much better than joe lockhart for the democratic cause. >> are you kidding? >> no, this guy says, no plan, question mark, to me, you idiot. how about eliminating a $1 trillion unconstitutional entitlement which is going to bankrupt the united states. which is -- i just read that, obama care which i read for rick. >> you're not getting rid of it, you're putting it off for a year. >> you're giving it time to collapse under its own weight. >> are you trying to stir the pot? because mr. santelli is going to be joining us. joining us from the cme in chicago. would you like to respond to the twitter mafia? >> say what they said again. i really didn't catch it. >> no, we had what was supposed to be a

there after that well exactly the the interest rates you know during the period of previous to paul volcker coming into central bank or america interest rates on the ten year went to fifteen sixteen percent currently you know people are panicking that they're almost at three percent up from one point four percent so they've doubled in the last year people are panicking that this throws the entire mortgage market into disarray it means stocks are earnings won't be coming in as people thought they were it means student loans are going to be just an upward it means all the loans that people have adjusted to all the elements of society that they've borrowed against going to be adjusted higher and so now with a three percent move people are panicking but it's well within the historical norm to see those rates go to five ten as high as fifteen percent which means that the debt market loses sixty seventy eighty percent of its principal value so all banks are insolvent their insolvent today but they're being held they're being held aloft with quantitative easing which has a sell by date it has an e

reagan and carried all the way through republican and democratic administrations not just by you know volcker reagan but also by bush james baker bob rubin bill clinton backed it up by raising interest rates only say you know we're going to make the dollar valuable again we're going to make we're going to it was the king dollar period that's the sound dollar period so ok not a gold standard but a dollar stand and that actually worked fairly well from one nine hundred eighty two thousand and ten the problem is in two thousand and ten obama geithner bernanke he tore up the dollar standard said we're going to chip in the dollar we want to important. we're going to cut it short you guys are on your own so now there is no standard at all so you have a new period of chaos but if you're the arabs you know the deal has been torn up they say you know we're not going to maintain the value of the dollar so there are so well ok what do we get for oil just paper money that you say you're trying to cheapen so now they're like they're exploring a lot of alternatives the g.c.c. may have a common currency eur

reagan and carried all the way through republican and democratic administrations not just by you know volcker reagan but also by bush james baker rubin bill clinton backed it up by raising interest rates only say you know we're going to make the dollar valuable again we're going to make we did it was the king dollar period the sound dollar period so ok not a gold standard but a dollar stand and that actually worked fairly well for nine hundred eighty two thousand and ten the problem is in two thousand and ten obama geithner bernanke he tore up the dollar standard said we're going to chip in the dollar we want to important. we're going to cut it short you guys are on your own it's another is no standard at all so you have a new period of chaos if you're the arabs you know the deal has been torn up they say you know we're not going to maintain the value of the dollar so they are say well ok what do we get for oil it's just paper money that you say you're trying to cheapen so now they're like they're exploring a lot of alternatives the g.c.c. may have a common currency europe is creating ripples

and rivals say it's been the single most painful issue for the volcker rule.ually point together london whale. of course we haven't seen the volcker rule but it's expected to be strict because of that. >> the london whale hurting liquidity. kayla tausche, thank you very much. >> stocks have calmed down this morning after hitting record highs yesterday after the fed announced it won't begin to taper this month. joining us now neal hennessey and ira, credit director at credit suisse. good morning. >> good morning. >> there are people who say i don't want to get involved. i don't want to buy at the top. you said the dow could end another 3,200 points from here, though. why? >> if you go back to the high in 2007, the price of sales ratio in the dow jones was approximately 1.7. today it stands at $1.40. if you go back to the high in 2007, the market wasn't frothy. the reason the market got cut in half is it was the only place for liquidity. between 2003 and 2007 depending on what indices you looked at, it was up on average but clearly not keeping up with real estat

we're going to need volcker 2.0, within five years.whatever. >> within five years, that means five years of policy. >> five years of it. no, we're eventually, i wish -- we can make it worse with the reckoning we'll have to deal with. make it worse by staying accommodative. >> yellen is a firm believer in this output gap concept. the idea that inflation is not a threat as long as we have massive unemployment and unused capacity in the economy. that's the way she looks at the world. and over the last five or six years, it's proven to be the better way to look at the world to predict inflation outcomes than it has the idea that we flood the -- but joe, the other theory hasn't worked very well. the idea that because the fed -- >> worked in the '80s didn't it? >> it was in the '70s. >> that's when we enacted it and the '80s we got the benefit of it. we've got to bring in roger altman. joining us roger altman founder and chairman of ever corp. partners. deputy treasury secretary. roger, i immediately tried to say this is a prime example that

what do you think about the volcker rule and the movement to make big banks smaller? >> i believe you will see a vocal role adopted fairly soon. rule adopted fairly soon. i think there will be a very solid rural. i do not think it will harm what goes on. we talk about international. the british are doing something very similar. i think that one will work. we didake even smaller, the regulators the power to reduce banks if they believe anyone financial institution is becoming a problem, even by making them shrink in size or reducing a function. we do see them in principle. points out one of the reasons the banks got bigger is we spent two years asking bank of america and wells fargo and jpmorgan, we you please buy this think? to some extent, they have a legitimate complaint. -- to some extent, they have a legitimate complaint. we did pressure them to buy jpmorgan chase. i do not think it is a problem. one answer is too much political pressure. anyone who thinks the banks have nott of clinical clout did watch legislation. on every issue where there was a dispute between

volcker, nice to have you with us. thank you for giving us your time. volcker veeland joining us, professor at university and one of angela merkel's wise men. back to you for now. >> good stuff, geoff, thank you for that. plenty more from geoff and steve. the coverage of the ecb and interest rate decisions on cnbc in our extended coverage. bank of england will be delivering its rate decision at 12:00 london time. 1:00 cet. and the decision is at 13:45 cet and the press conference at 14:30. >>> in japan, central bankers are using their most bullish economic language since the financial crisis saying the economy is moderately recovering with inflation expected to keep ridesi rising gradually. the yen has weakened. it is now at 102 to the dollar. key level which, of course, the yen has -- the dollar has been unable to sustain. >>> in india, rajan start eed h term. on the first day on the job, he unloaded a dump truck of measures to shore up the rupee. until the end of november, overseas borrowing rates have been raised. other moves are geared to liberalizi

paul volcker, to me the greatest fed chairman in history broke the back of inflation, set up a perioderm growth, ran the operations the same way. transparency has led to more volatility and more confusion. look at what just happened with this forward guidance stuff. they were trapped by their own dots that you guys have outlined the last few days. they wanted to be transparent on forward guidance, but then, oh, many i god, if you take what their own funds spit out, now what do we do? i'm with volcker, what you do is just stop all the talking and do your job like he used to. >> i know you watch once in a while, but i've been saying over and over. this -- this narrative that we've heard from the fed. well, we're going to slowly start to taper and then unemployment will be at this point down to seven and then it'll be heading to 6.5. gdp by then will be 3, to 3.5. but we've had a five-year recovery already. there's no way they know the future about whether it's going to go as planned which is going to allow them to exit. and my biggest fear that the economy doesn't cooperate because it h

back on one point, i know you're not, look what happened in the 1970s, jimmy carter appointed paul volckerthe stock markets who didn't want him to raise interest rates to squeeze out inflation. sometime there is seminal person in that character, in that position of character who has to do something tough to particularly stand up to the markets. >> yes. that gets to the whole thing when the fed didn't know what it was doing. in 1970s it was printing a lot of money. it had a crisis. if the fed was doing the job right, it would be a non-event. the fed is like a bull loose in proverbial china shop, wrecking things here and there. give as falls boom in housing, falls boom in commodities, falls boom in bonds, falls boom in farmland, very destruck tiff. that is why we're not getting. job creation, so far we haven't seen a direct sort of indication how that destruction is taking place. that is to say the housing market generally has been coming up, actually boomed in the spring, but it has been slowing down a little bit, but still coming up. we haven't seen a lot of direct inflation, unless you st

to that the president said when it comes to the volcker rule, that will be finalized by the end of theank you very much. rich edson. david: call it unintended consequences. microsoft tries to poke some fun at apple over its new iphones but it doesn't quite work out as microsoft planned. you don't want to miss the details of this story coming right up. liz: plus if a picture is worth a thousand words, what can 10,000 instagram followers get you? coming up we'll tell you exactly what the social media followers are really worth when we go "off the desk." ♪ my customers can shop around-- see who does good work and compare costs. it doesn't usually work that way with health care. but with unitedhealthcare, i get information on quality rated doctors, treatment options and estimates for how much i'll pay. that helps me, and my guys, make better decisions. i don't like guesses with my business, and definitely not with our health. innovations that work for you. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. ...amelia... neil and buzz: for teaching us that you can't create the future... by clinging

now, if paul volcker killed inflation in the '80s by taking the fed funds rate to 20%, how is it we solved our problems by a massive increase in inflation and debt and lowering interest rates? how could that possibly ever be true? >> well, if i could just jump in here, too. >> yeah. >> the other issue is, from may to the common -- well, to the present time, 100 basis points to me on the 10-year is too much, maria. so, you know, i can't tell you exactly what is enough, but i can tell you what's too much. and 100 basis points in that short of time period doesn't give any investor a chance to kind of calibrate themselves and reorient themselves into a new regime. so i would say if you can get a 25-basis point increment over a reasonable time, meaning probably less than a year but not greater than a year, that would be okay for investors to digest. remember, this september there's so many data points that we're going to be discussing and trying to figure out and make sense of that interest rate is only one component of that. but as i said, i think 100 basis points in the past couple of months

volcker is an advocate of re-creating glass-steagall. i don't think it's happening at that kind of black-and-white fashion where you read direct laws that separate commercial frank -- banking and consumer banking. what is happening is in a very different way it's happening before our very eyes. one of my favorite people is the former said president of kansas city tom connick who is a big advocate of having financial institutions they specialize institution and when they were specialized institutions we have the best financial system in the world. the financial capital has been one of our best exports. not everyone may agree with that but what is happening now as you have capital requirements that are keeping certain banks out of businesses so you are effectively kind of doing it the hard way and the banks are fighting for regulators to then nail. i don't know that it's the best possible situation but we are going in that direction whether the banks like it or not -- they don't like it. what you don't have on the flip side is regulators a

. >> the one that was going to separate risky business, the volcker amendment, which is still not passedery weak. we still have that. the key thing is we have some banks in this country that just about everybody that observes it says they're still too big to fail. we said we weren't going to have banks that are too big to fail. >> dennis? >> the question will be how can these banks fail at this point? we have a banking system in the united states now as liquid as we have ever seen our banks. they are abundantly so. they're sitting on, what, $1.7 trillion in free reserves? that is the definition of liquidity. banks are outlooking for loans. they can't even find them. they're having to invest in treasury securities. consumers are as liquid as we have ever seen. corporations are as liquid as we have ever seen. i think it is irresponsible of the senator to tell us that we have too big to fail and a new crisis facing us when the biggest problem is that our banks are too liquid, not illiqu illiquid. it was the democrats who forced the banks in the past to make loans to go into the problems of

your own account and you want to be an investment, or you want to be an insurance company, then what volcker is saying is you have to have more restrictions on those activities, because the government's standing behind the deposits. and so, what i think is -- the hurdle we're dealing with is how we begin to work our way back, to be competitive, but get out of some of the things that are necessary to protect bank depositors. that's what we do. >> can you do that, though, when you still have this whole too big to fail? you know, requecan you protect consumer deposits? >> i think banks can. they have to limit the amount of risk on their books. they have to reduce the amount of leverage. they have to be careful what they're sources for liquidity, which is what happened before. you have deposits as a source of liquidity. but when a crisis comes, because of the government guarantee, you hold onto the deposits. but the commercial paper went away and other sourcing of funding, because that's how they operate. insurance companies operate totally different. our job is to go out and talk about protecti

it is so devisive, volcker rule in of itself, it is so confusing what has been implemented and what hasmined. where will all this fall out? >> that's a good question and nobody knows the answer to it. we know what the law says and we know that the law obligates the regulators to promulgate regulations and then start enforcing them that are consist tented with the law. we're more than three years now since the law was passed. a lot of this work has not been done and you, it starts making you worry that, you know, not literally, but figuratively you drift into a common law regime which is contrary to the written law and things just never get done. that's why i felt compelled in my last "wall street journal" piece and i'm not only one, to start yelling about this. we shouldn't forget about it. lori: the president taking the opportunity on this anniversary in a sense to yell at republicans to say, stop getting in the way of getting my policies instituted here. what did you think of the president earlier today? >> well, i'm sorry i was teaching and i didn't hear the speech but the spirit of

that's the famous volcker rule. but that rule hasn't been written.t sounds simple in concept to tell banks, don't take risks with your own but, but it's complicated in reality. banks have a lot of assets. what do they do with those assets and instructing them what to do is very complicated. >> on the politics, i've heard on one hand, okay, this was a missed moment, then, maybe it was a lack about understanding. >> lack of accountability. if you look and see who's been held accountable, kind of no one. when you look at that 600-page report that came out of the bankruptcy examiner -- >> that came out of the lehman bankruptcy, right, and he found actionable manipulation. those are his words, not mine. and nothing came of that. i mean, so i think that there's a sense that, if you're a banker and there is no accountable at the end. i just don't think that anybody's really been penalized in ways that we've seen in the past. >> and it feels with too, when you say accountable, that carrot and stick problem, for if they are going to be so big, as part of our

i'm a volcker-ite in that manner. >> that's what stan druckenmiller said yesterday. >> is that the right see. i like opaqueness -- >> it's opacity. >> is opaqueness okay? >> it is opacity. >> there's some words that should be words. >> opaqueness sounds good. >> it flies. but the word is opacity. >> it has or. >> oh, wow. >> so i'm legit. >> does it say repudiate. when you refudiate -- >> i have never used it in my life. >> you should. >> i'll have to get modern. >>> we're also having becky's interview with warren buffett and bank of america's brian moynihan, their thoughts on qe-3. and the fed's decision to not start tapering. take a look at the futures and see how things are setting themselves up. "squawk" coming right back. >>> ever wonder how the real magic is made? craving the behind the scenes dirt? do you wonder what we talk about in the commercial breaks? then the talking squawk blog is for you. go to squawk@cnbc.com. this weeks edition wraps up an amazing week of guests. buffett, moynihan, druckenmiller, dodd/frank and captain underpants. >>> welcome back, everybody. fed chairma

. >> stan was here last week and he missed the days, he misses the days of volcker where things were. >> i don't -- he made a lot of money trading on that. i don't think that's the way you run a railroad. i think transparency -- >> transparency is a lot easier when the situation stays the same and when everything's lined up and when you are keeping rates low. look to see when you raise rates -- >> they could have foreshadowed this, could've changed their tone and let people realize -- >> but they're data dependent so the only transparency you need for them to say i'm data department. if they can change their minds. >> they create their own problems. >> i think this was a washington problem. i think they were worried about it and didn't want to start beforeha beforehand. >> i think, actually, they were wrong about how much the tapering was going to raise long-term rates. you saw long-term rates move so much over the last few months, i don't think they realized it was going to have that effect. >> if they saw the mortgage market and it was down 30% originations, they should still know,

what do you think about some of volcker role and the move to make big banks have smaller?> we will see it adopted fairly soon. and a whole lot of regulated. but i think they are making progress. they are trying to do it but they were trying to accommodate with the financial and institution said. i think it's going to be a very solid volcker rule and i don't think it's going to harm what went on. we talk about the british are doing something. so i think that one will work. as for making them smaller, as pointed out, we give the regulators the power to reduce things if they believe that any one financial institution becomes a problem to be even making them shrink in size and by reducing the function, but reducing the principal as jamie dimond pointed out, one reason the banks got bigger is they started asking bank of america and wells fargo can you buy this bank because we didn't want to let it go. they said they had a legitimate complaint. but we did pressure them to buy their merrill lynch. money answer is this i don't think it is the problem. the argument is we have to mu

the end of this year the major components of the dodd-frank bill have to be completed including the volckerrule. i think when we are done we will have accomplished the most st in 75 years and of the you know unfortunately or fortunately we won't know with 100% clarity unless and until there -- whether we have done enough. i believe that we have taken the steps that we need to take in enacting a law that says we have taken -- we are in the process of implementing that law. as i have said when we are done we have to take stock. the world as it exists at the end of this year in the beginning of this year and then each or after that each month after that really on an ongoing basis is the financial system the same as it was or has it changed plex is an evolving? do we have the visibility? do we have the supervision? .. maybe it's still controversial. when all said and done. will it lose money? >> already turn the corner on the bank investments. so, you know, i must say that it is a hugely important accomplishment. when was it was enacted people were saying there's a hundred of billion of dollar

end of this year, the major components of the dodd-frank bill have to be completed, including the volcker rule. and i think that when we're done, we will have accomplished the most significant reform of the financial system in 75 years and, you know, unfortunately, or for natalie we won't know with 100% clarity unless and until there's a financial crisis whether we've done enough. i believe that we've taken the steps that we need to take in enacting a law that says too big to fail is over. we're in the process of taking the necessary steps to implement that law. as i said on a number of occasions when we're done we have to take stock and we have to look at the world as it exists the end of this year, the beginning of next year, then each year after that, each month after that, really on an on going basis and saying, is the financial system the same as it was? has it changed? is it evolving? do we have the visibility into it? do we have the supervision? do we have the right regulatory structure? one of props that happened between the 1930s and this financial crisis there frankly was not th

we still have not implemented the volcker rule.st forward from five years ago to what is happening now. does the dodd frank legislation guarantee or otherwise make it less possible to have another crisis? >> make it less possible. nobody guarantees anything. i disagreeme say, with those who say deregulation caused the crisis. i think it was non-regulation. it was not putting in new regulations to catch up with what was going on. with regard to what bill said, he said they are going to figure out how to get around it. i agree. that is why it is not very specific. it is long. at the new deal, they dealt with bank insurance, mutual funds and the sec. put it all in one bill. if you look at the totality of the legislation of the new deal, it is similar. you gave the number 30. i will give the number 60. understandn congress what that means. that is what it takes to break a filibuster. we had nine separate markups in our committee, voted on them separately, and they had some relationship, but they stood alone. the senate said look, it is

we still have not implemented the volcker rule. fast forward from five years ago to what is happening now. does the dodd frank legislation guarantee or otherwise make it less possible to have another crisis? >> make it less possible. nobody guarantees anything. first, let me say, i disagree with those who say deregulation caused the crisis. i think it was non-regulation. it was not putting in new regulations to catch up with what was going on. with regard to what bill said, he said they are going to figure out how to get around it. i agree. that is why it is not very specific. it is long. if you look at the new deal, they dealt with bank insurance, mutual funds and the sec. we put it all in one bill. if you look at the totality of the legislation of the new deal, it is similar. you gave the number 30. i will give the number 60. all of us in congress understand what that means. that is what it takes to break a filibuster. we had nine separate markups in our committee, voted on them separately, and they had some relationship, but the