In a way, and ironically, this piece makes a great argument for Sanders' advocacy of breaking the banks. As Frankel underlines, a major reason serious reform - such as raising bank capital significantly - has not taken place and many others have been gutted is the political power of the banks. Frankel lauds Clinton because her proposals are less ambitious and more in line with the political constraints. But wouldn't it be better to cut down the financial industry to size so it does not rule politics in the first place?
This is nothing new and will not stop, the idea multinational banks are anything other than too big to fail is a fantasy. Look at what is going on in the eurozone, do you think Germany can cope with Deutsche Banks 75 trillion USD derivatives liability coming home, 20x German GDP
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild 19th century. How far back do you want to go
Debt is control both politically by government of voters, and by banks of government and the public. As debt grows then control grows
'Debt is such a powerful tool, it is such a useful tool, it's much better than colonialism ever was because you can keep control without having an army, without having a whole administration.' Susan George
This whole article is a fantasy. America wanted all this debt and sought it. Now the fallout is being handed onto future generations and as they gain a voice they are unhappy.
'Blessed are the young for they shall inherit the national debt' Pres Hoover - except nobody asked them and many do not have a job
Open societies have not always needed defending in the determined way that they do today. But the tide turned against them after the 2008 global financial crisis, and, more than a decade later, the threat posed by authoritarian nationalism continues to rise.