Bernie Sanders Proposes "Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist" Bill

Are you willing to bet your life on that, or are you just a jewish partisan shill who needs to be shot?

Trump is already shitting on tech and the fed so banks aren't out of the question. If not now then down the road, I just want that communist to stay fucked off

Kill yourself, neoliberal shill.

Go back to your bait threads gaypheus

3% seems arbitrary and these companies could just sandbag to get below that threshold, no? I unironically support fracturing giant megacorporations that make money off of misery.

He's right. Despite Wall Street kikes coopting conservatism, it's in our best interest for big banking to be destroyed.

nothing wrong with this

>idontknowwhosjewinganymore.jpg

Break up the news companies too. Fucking garbage. Fox News especially. Fucking oil dick suckers.

Bernie Sanders has some great ideas.

This one and that other idea he had about taxing corporations for the amount of money it’s employees get in welfare are great ideas.

Wish Hillary didn’t fuck up the nomination for him. It would’ve been interesting to see him and Trump at the debates.

Just gives more creedene to the theory that Hillary was always working for Trump.

Then follow the money.

We did have to bail them out and they gave the bail outs as bonuses

Even a lazy communist clock that never worked a day in its life is right twice a day.

Breaking up monopolies was common sense not that long ago.
Should be a no brainer.

I am unironically okay with this.

And that would lead me to Donald j Trump

nah, let them just fail. the market will fix the rest. there's no need for socialism

This is a good idea. The American public never benefits and has never benefited from the constant mergers and size increase of their corporations. It kills competition, makes it much more likely that you see collusion, price fixing, oligopolies when only a few large players are left. Also makes it more likely that they're buying politicians, and as this seems to stay, makes the economy as a whole more fragile.

No one can really argue against this. But why aren't anti-trust laws better applied in the first place to prevent the constant mergers?

almost nobody disagrees with critique of capitalism, but the problem is trying to find the alternative that doesnt resort to pure ideology or fiction. I think trust busting would be a good idea but nationalization of an industry like healthcare is wrong because it basically creates a new monopoly with no oversight that is more destructive than the previous institution.

when the people behind the mergers are the ones handing out campaign money left and right then it becomes hard to stick to principals

Kek.
Commie wants to nationalize big companies.

How long until he is suicided for crossing the banker jews?

Great! He out-retarded the retards who came up with “too big to fail”! What a Socialist!

breaking up companies doesnt mean nationalization. If he said he wanted to nationalize those companies he would say so using the phrase "I want to nationalize those companies."

who else is proposing similar legislation?

pure ideology
disgusting

>Implying he will ever have the guts to say it like that
It's always a slow boil, step by step, and believe me, this one is a big step.

I'm okay with this.
Government bailouts were bullshit, using public tax dollars to bail out kikes.

So is there a way to solve the issue of "buying laws" that doesn't go against the freedom of "doing what you want with your money". IE: handing out campaign money.

I know a lot of countries have limits on political donations, and that you guys somehow circumvent this with PACs and SUPERPACS. Is there a good middle ground?

Based desu.
But how the fuck do you actually "break them up"?
Weird that a Jew is going after the Jews.

What a fucking moron.

Yeah, let's break up the one big bank that DIDN'T royally fuck up their books in the housing bubble and that was there to help bail out the U.S. economy by buying some of the shit firms that did. Let's also break up Berkshire Hathaway which is an extremely sound and diversified business that is in no way, shape, or form engaged in monopoly or a threat to the U.S. economy if it failed, but IS abig part of a lot of responsible Americans' retirement portfolios.

This fucking commie dipshit's bill would leave shit-stain banks like Citi and Wells Fargo intact and literally break up the only one of the four biggest American banks that has been competently run.

No, it's not up to anyone to decide how much money someone should be "allowed" to have. Let the chips fall where they may.

That being said, "too big to fail" is BS. Let the chips fall where they may.

I like this, but Bernie is still a faggot.

Then you're not following it all the way back to the private banking industry.

>more destructive
To whose interests, exactly? There's nothing wrong with a monopoly, as long as the people are in control of it, which admittedly is difficult under such governments as the USA's which consider themselves safe spaces for the ruling class.

This. I hope some rogue assassin gets to kill Sanders

>muh slippery slope argument
You have to be 18 and out of diapers to post here.

Kill yourself, neoliberal.

Imaginary friends aren't people.

Except that we bail the banks out every time they fail and we won’t stop.

Walmart employs 1.4 million people..
To big to fail.

>muh jews! Muh jews!

Wew lad. Enjoy your socialism and NPC jobs

He is doing the opposite of Nationalization. He is breaking up companies that probably became oligopolies because of constant government subsidization and shit. By breaking up these mega-corporations he is fostering market competition and removing the ability of any individual firm to have considerable affects on the market as a whole.

>nothing wrong with monopolies
found the retard

Thats pretty much the only reasonable thing he want to do.
BUST THE TRUSTS!

I'm a capitalist and I agree. If the nation cannot let them fail then they an't be allowed to get to that point.

We'd just end up with twice as many jews controlling the same amount of money.

he's said more outlandish socialist ideals like free healthcare and free education. Its not like his base would be opposed to nationalization, but in this case he doesnt say he wants to nationalize them.

you right a law and tell them to fuck off and divide assets and reorganize under like 5 new companies.

not really because our courts decided that allocating money towards something falls under freedom of speech, which although might be true, makes it incredibly unfair in the political system. You could try banning Pacs and superpacs but no senator or representative is going to vote to destroy the thing that put them in office

JP morgan is one of the most responsible investment banks but being the most moral investment bank is like being the cleanest dumpster diver.

>nothing wrong with monopolies
>nothing wrong with a monopoly controlled by the government

this

if you have 5 companies and break them up into 15, then each company is now a lot less powerful economically and politically

Gotta fight fire with fire boys. Takes a Jew to take down the Jew.

this IS a bait thread

Bernie's based. He doesn't go for the throat and thinks playing by the rules lets you win, but other than that he's based.

Good luck making this happen you old faggot; it won't.

Attached: 15777058_10211078656099663_5305150715564388570_o.jpg (1088x714, 87K)

How about nationalizing all banks and privatizing everything that currently isn't?

>destroy oligopolies by creating the worlds biggest multi-industry monopoly
this helps absolutely nobody

What about nationalizing the Federal Reserve then?

it is nationalized. Thats what a nationalized credit system looks like

>the bigger things are the better we'll all be

I'm sorry, which self aware ai with a transparent thought printout did we elect to run the monopolies that govern our lives?

>nationalize the fed
w...what did he mean by this?

The amount of communist in this thread sickens me.

We are going to need way more helicopter rides than anticipated

Attached: 318.jpg (457x300, 26K)

This. Imposing "too big" ceiling simply encourages a cartel - like it happened with US telco when it was "de-monopolized".

Typical commie who doesn't know markets at all. Never has it occurred to him that lowering barrier of entry to competitors has a much better proven track record compared to "demonopolized behemoths".

If any regulation is to be done, it is curbing predatory lending of consumer credit and mortgages, and removing naked credit from capital markets (by enforcing near-full reserve balance sheets for investment banks).

nobody is advocating for communism you brainlet. Critique of ideology is the only way you will ever be free and this thread is in the process of critiquing capitalism and socialist nationalization of industry

if you took the best ideas from the left and the best ideas from the right, you could fix america
too bad the goyim get distracted by differences on minor cultural issues and thus will never get together

ehehehehehe.....

>memeflag
>leaf

can you imagine being so brainlet triggered by reducing the influence of bankers and forcing competition that you can only meme in exasperated objection

Needs a clause that any liabilities the parent is found to have in the future (crimes etc) then all the children are liable for them, otherwise just a great way to sweep away a lot of crap they have done.

Oh fuck off. If you want to prevent another 2008 crisis how about you overhaul the outdated way Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operate and stop trying to pin blame on the private sector.

>if you have more companies there'll be a big cartel
>instead of the small cartel currently controlling everything

You're right that predatory lending and transparency are part of a good solution.

Now find me anyone in congress even muttering about that.

Too big to fail companies are unironically what cause market crashes because they take stupid risks since the government is willing to bail them out at the taxpayers expense. They're rewarded for being retarded.

This is the first thing I unironically agree with the champagne socialist on. Trust busting is a US pastime and neutering these big companies by shattering them into a bunch of small competing firms would be a great step in the right direction.

Most based part of Sanders. From now on, I will only vote for radicals on either side. No neoliberals, neocons, centrists, or milquetoast faggots ever again.

>free healthcare and free education

Tax funded isn't exactly free. Unfortunately this is one of those things which need to be socialized as no reasonable free market solution exists.

The safety aspect demands high level of regulation and at that point "invisible hand" goes haywire if you try it - you end up with $10k/day in hospital merely for staying, no treatment.

Because most "optimal" market is leaving the bottom 80% to die unless they give up all their possessions. Killing off your underclass never worked particularly well long-term in capitalism (tragedy of the commons).

Finance, however is another story. US is p much repeating same story as they did with telcos.

You go, Bernie.

Attached: 1392595169407.gif (267x151, 1.96M)

If the people collectively ARE the monopoly, there's literally no problem, as far as the people are concerned. Prove otherwise.

>being so cucked by Bastiat et al. that he can't conceive of the people governing themselves
Drinking too much of the muh NPC self-superiority koolaid will do that to you.

Eventually, the cartel can include everyone, more or less the small-business yeoman existence the Founders had contemplated.

It didn't "just happen". It took neoliberals in power to make that happen and get their $500 billion in gibs.
A strongly regulated private monopoly is probably the better idea.
>muh markets
Are just a set of rules that people choose. There is no such thing as a "free market".

Frankly, I don't think we need private banking at all. It really should be owned and regulated in the form of a public utility.

Based and boldpilled

>Increasing competition in a free market
>Communist

this is one thing Jow Forums will agree with the commies on and that's that the international (((Banking))) elite need to burn

Attached: 61E2tpEyRZL.jpg (826x1360, 115K)

I agree fellow human.

Attached: Untitled.png (416x435, 114K)

“Too big to fail” is a dusty buzzphrase that really has no meaning anymore. Lehman brothers were “too big to fail,” but they did fail, and at the end of the day it wasn’t, like, the end of capitalism. Yeah, it was a fiscal catastrophe, but it’s time to move on and shut the fuck up about the 2008 crisis already. None of comrade Sanders’ meme magic would have prevented 2008, and nothing he can do will preemptively stop the next one. That’s the entire nature of a financial crisis.

Unironically based Jew

>end of the day
Except for the huge, huge quantities of money that went to bail out the banks and leave the rest of us in the shit.
>nothing he can do
>what are automatic stabilizers
The devices you neoliberal jews tore up in the name of "building character" and "small government".

>If the people collectively ARE the monopoly, there's literally no problem, as far as the people are concerned. Prove otherwise.
The fuck? Is this some kind of new bizarro pro-communism argument?

Good for him, I hope he does it. Fuck banks and fuck bankers.

>I'm a total retard
oh well, there's nothing I can do about that, sorry

As others have said previously, you would be doing the exact same thing as the companies are now by having them all owned by the government. Part of the reason they're so shit is because they're in bed with the government. The public utility I'm going to work for is privately owned, for example, and is one of the best and most productive utilities in the country. But nationalization would turn it into a subpar DMV tier service.

So no. Learn economics you dummy.

I have an opinion too.

Attached: Untitled_also.jpg (119x124, 5K)

>there are people who still haven’t embraced the feudalism pill
Sad!

"We'll just keep having devastating financial crises until the end of humanity. That's the way it works, just deal with it. I'm such a pragmatic realist for acknowledging our problems and deciding that it is not possible to fix them."

Too bad Bernie is a cuck and would capitulate to the bankers and whatever other DOD thug opposes him if he ever became president

>>Eventually, the cartel can include everyone
No, the point of the cartel is to cock-block competition because you can still corner the market entry for small competition via regulatory capture. It's not some perverse idea of trade union.

>A strongly regulated private monopoly is probably the better idea.
Only in certain areas where commons are to be protected and competition would be inevitably destructive (like building roads, or healthcare). But monopolies are inherently inefficient, on par with soviet communism in terminal stages. If you can avoid em, it's better to avoid.

>Are just a set of rules that people choose. There is no such thing as a "free market".

Free markets generally have far better outcomes, enlightened monopolies are about as rare as enlightened dictatorship. It's a common strawman by commies using worst instances of regulatory capture as "see, that's your free market".

Yeah so does Trump. Bernie was a cuck who folded to Hillary, and you think he’s going to stand up to the global bankers who pulls the puppet string of Hillary. GTFO with that shit
cnbc.com/2018/07/20/trump-poised-to-take-control-of-the-federal-reserve.html

Attached: 86D714C8-AAB2-4250-9343-FF248F24072F.jpg (699x765, 114K)

trump doesnt want to
trump doesnt care

>rip banks apart
>shekels falling in
>pick them up
Great plan Bernie

>1 post by this ID

>trump doesnt want to
>trump doesnt care
Good argument now where’s the sauce?