Similar Posts

2 Comments

  1. tony, obama gives more powers to the fed bc the fed, and its big member banks and the ones who took over this country and financed obama in his election victory (at a rate of nearly 4:1 over mccain). they have no intention of doing anything rash, save merely a PR ploy for the public, which will be meant to show they’re being tough. meanwhile, it will be business as usual, since late sept of last year (and some might argue 1913).

    it is beyond unrealistic to expect them to break up the banks you mention. those banks hijacked the govt of the US last fall and they now (especially) control how the executive and legislature will react. this is the reason they put a seasoned 28-year banking stooge from delaware in a VP in the country (so much for change you can believe in).

    but obama hasn’t looked like he wants to even rock the toy boat he may play with in his bath tub, let alone the mega-liners which represent the relative banking interests. same for the military, big business.

    In short, just like Clinton, Bush jr, and countless numbers before them….it’s business as usual. sad but true.

    there will be losses for these companies for generations to come if they don’t cleanup the mess they’ve created, IMHO.

    and i highly doubt they’ll be forced to comply w/any regulations that are designed to check those banks’ power or profits.

    we live in a sad state..meanwhile we keep funding those who have the noose around our necks. the system can only stay alive as long as we give our time, money, energy, and most importantly, our BELIEF and FAITH thereto (all could be summed up by “energy”). remove that energy, and the system implodes of its own faults. another system, or decentralized networks of (more just??) systems can step in and take its place.

    hopefully you’re not as confused.

    SatyaPranava

  2. Why does Obama want to give more powers to the Fed? They are the ultimate in non-transparency…how do we know that institutions like JP Morgan won’t be given preferential treatment over regional or local banks?

    And I don’t understand when they say they will break up large banks if necessary. They had the opportunity to send BOA and Citi in FDIC receivership already in order to clean up their balance sheets and even to force bondholders to take a loss, but they didn’t do it.
    Is it realistic to think they would actually break up too big to fail entitities like JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs?

    Rob Kirby describes more heavy losses for the banks due to the interest rate swaps in this article:
    http://www.financialsense.com/Market/kirby/2009/0518.html
    Perhaps they are anticipating more heavy losses for Citi and Bank of America? Maybe they will break one of those two up and send the assets to the JP Morgan monster?
    And wasn’t Goldman Sachs supposed to become a depository institution? What is the status of that? Are they going to be forced to comply with these regulations?

    Confused,
    Tony K.

Comments are closed.