How will Sanders replace all those banking jobs?

Everytime he goes into his stump speech he says he intends to shut down the big bad banks. In a place like New York city, wouldn't that be very devastating to the economy? Not only do those big banks provide hundreds of thousands of jobs to the city but thousands of small businesses and workers depend on them also

Local restaurants, taxi companies, hotels etc

If these banks are forced to lay off people then those other businesses will also suffer.

How will he replace those jobs? What is his plan to provide a job to the waitress whose hours were reduced due to the restaurant where she works at losing customers?

Or hotel staff?

What about the people that worked at these banks? What will they do?

Has he answered these questions?

Thats why im not a big fan of his, even if his intentions are good

People work at these places

Sanders is a kook and couldn't run a lemonade stand.

With that said, the big banks need to be broken up. We cannot have banks that are "systematically important". No bank should be too big to fail.

Breaking up the banks into smaller ones and letting them duke it out is the answer.

originally posted by: muse7


People work at these places

Don't worry, they will all go into politics.

originally posted by: muse7
Everytime he goes into his stump speech he says he intends to shut down the big bad banks. In a place like New York city, wouldn't that be very devastating to the economy? Not only do those big banks provide hundreds of thousands of jobs to the city but thousands of small businesses and workers depend on them also

Local restaurants, taxi companies, hotels etc

If these banks are forced to lay off people then those other businesses will also suffer.

How will he replace those jobs? What is his plan to provide a job to the waitress whose hours were reduced due to the restaurant where she works at losing customers?

Or hotel staff?

What about the people that worked at these banks? What will they do?

Has he answered these questions?

Thats why im not a big fan of his, even if his intentions are good

People work at these places

They will be sent to re-education camps for free.

He sounds good tho, right?

I don't much follow the primary candidates for political parties I don't belong too (as its none of my business who they choose to represent them during the real elections) ...so don't quote me on this ... but:

Breaking up the big banks doesn't necessarily mean less banking will ocure. It just means more smaller banks will emerge. It could lead to more competition; it could even lead to better terms for all those people you mention in your post.

The local hotel doesn't have to worry about loosing their one big bank client when they negotiate on prices. With more smaller clients they have more power in b the negotiations.

Same is true for the banks employees. With more options out there; employees have a better chance to shop for a better job.

originally posted by: muse7
Everytime he goes into his stump speech he says he intends to shut down the big bad banks.

Just like Cruz, Clinton and Trump he is making promises he either has no intention of keeping or that he knows would never get through the Congress.

a reply to: muse7
Seems as if you have the wrong idea. The point was to do a telephone industry style break up on the monopolies.The "too big to fail" banks. Years and years ago the government stepped in and forced the major telephone company of the time to break up into smaller chunks.That was "Bell Telephone". They could charge any price they wanted and set all the rules. After that , the entire industry took off.With starting companies able to flourish you have what we have today.

Now , why not apply that very same ideology to banks and financial institutions ?

originally posted by: ButsDuge
I don't much follow the primary candidates for political parties I don't belong too (as its none of my business who they choose to represent them during the real elections) ...so don't quote me on this ... but:

Breaking up the big banks doesn't necessarily mean less banking will ocure. It just means more smaller banks will emerge. It could lead to more competition; it could even lead to better terms for all those people you mention in your post.

The local hotel doesn't have to worry about loosing their one big bank client when they negotiate on prices. With more smaller clients they have more power in b the negotiations.

Same is true for the banks employees. With more options out there; employees have a better chance to shop for a better job.

I remember when they broke up Ma Bell into all the baby bells.

But I think they did it under some monopoly law.

I'm not sure if it applies to the banks, tho.

a reply to: Gothmog

There was only one phone company in your example, there are more than one United States based bank and plenty of foreign banks.

a reply to: Gothmog

Lol, same idea.

I should have read your post before posting.

More smaller banks?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Gothmog

There was only one phone company in your example, there are more than one United States based bank and plenty of foreign banks.

But how many of those are considered "too big to fail". Yes , I get your point. But the original post was speaking of where does the workers go. Who supports the various industries relying on the employees that work at these banks . That was my answer to those concerns. More jobs open at the smaller banks , who now are able to pay better.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
a reply to: Gothmog

Lol, same idea.

I should have read your post before posting.

Thats a first for me here on ATS.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: muse7


People work at these places

Don't worry, they will all go into politics.

Exactly.

Example: "Red October"

en.wikipedia.org...

Personally, I don't believe massah will install his archtype. Not yet.

The Bern is worth trillions in marxist seed sowing, cultural demolition
Progressive goodwill, if you will...
Invaluable ethos axis shifting
There are women, fanning, and privately, to him.
That adamant downbeat ape cast, the wide unabashed grin
That's not a narrow bolshevik backbeat
Finally, at last, this frustrated little boy, is going to
come. We can make him look good.
And he is one of ours.

If there's one thing the masters demand, it is their privacy,
their right to surprise
so they might
give us the bern

Flipside is he'd do more harm than good to the progressive movement, maybe
Let them just dream about it. Do we have someone better...?
by that I mean future reserves

Guess we'll have to just stick around
tune in to see

# 622

originally posted by: Gothmog
But how many of those are considered "too big to fail". Yes , I get your point.

None of them should considered to be too big to fail. The taxpayer should not bail out any private industry. If they fail, so be it.

Excuse me for being dim, but FDIC insurance is already guaranteed by the government for banks and our money, isn't it?

Edit to add, how is FDIC different from TARP?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
None of them should considered to be too big to fail. The taxpayer should not bail out any private industry. If they fail, so be it.

Once an industry or individual company becomes big enough that their disappearance could seriously harm the country they're too big to fail. If we had let the banks fail as they deserved to, it would have absolutely wrecked quality of life in the US for the next several generations. At a certain point the ideals of capitalism have to take a back seat to reality. The damage a company can do by screwing up or failing should be mitigated through state intervention so they can't get into TBTF territory. Now that the banks are though, they should absolutely be broken up.

Honestly, a lot of companies are in this territory. Apple, Microsoft, most utility companies, the banks, and several others.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Excuse me for being dim, but FDIC insurance is already guaranteed by the government for banks and our money, isn't it?

Edit to add, how is FDIC different from TARP?

FDIC is nothing more than a psychological move. FDIC's max insurance payout is less than $5 billion while there are nearly $7 trillion in deposits in the US. The program is designed for a couple purposes:
If a small bank goes under deposits can be insured, and if a medium to large sized bank starts to go down, FDIC can step in, insure deposits, and help to prevent a bank run.
The other purpose is it's designed to make people feel safe using banks. The reality of the situation is that in the next banking crisis FDIC is only going to cover maybe 1% of total deposits, all other banking losses are going to be made up through confiscating deposits, probably alongside removing cash from the economy.

FDIC is different from TARP in that FDIC is insurance on your deposits up to a claimed $250,000 although the reality is it's only capable of insuring about $15.50 per person in the US if the whole thing went south again. TARP was a program where the US government purchased assets from the banks in order to put liquidity into the market. It was a bailout for the banks where FDIC is in theory a bailout for the customer.

Also, TARP happened right away. FDIC carries this neat little clause in it that says they'll repay the money "as soon as possible". There is no actual definitive timeline on it so if it's deemed not possible to reimburse someone for several years due to a collapse, then you'll be waiting several years in order to be reimbursed.

In short, don't expect FDIC to do anything for you.

a reply to: muse7


He wants to break up the big banks, he has a plan but can he do it? Chances are if he is somehow president he has an uphill battle against him and I know he will try to do what he can but that doesn't mean that he will succeed, depending on the majority of the house, whether it's Republican or Democrat. That said he's the only one I trust that would actually impose the regulations that Wall Street, namely big banks, need.

Your girl Hillary, who is bought and paid for by all the above, will not regulate Wall Street or the big banks.

a reply to: Aazadan

Thank you for explaining!



That cleared up a lot for me.

a reply to: Aazadan

Healthier banks would have stepped in to acquire the assets and businesses of banks that collapsed. No bank or business should ever be too big to fail. Government should not be bailing out any businesses. The risk of failure is what keeps management from taking on too much risk.

I also support separating Wall Street banking from commercial banking.