>> WE HAVE CRITICIZED HILLARY CLINTON ON ANY NUMBER OF
OCCASIONS FOR WHAT WE PERCEIVE TO BE HER INCREDIBLY TIGHT
RELATIONSHIP WITH WALL STREET, WITH INDIVIDUALS ON WALL STREET,
WITH BANKS ON WALL STREET, AND SHE WANTS TO AVOID SOME OF THE
CRITICISM.
SO LAST NIGHT ON STEPHEN COLBERT'S LATE-NIGHT
SHOW SHE TRIED TO REASSURE THE PEOPLE WATCHING THAT SHE WOULD
NOT HAVE THIS INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BANKS,
TALKING ABOUT THE POLICY OF TOO BIG TO FAIL.
SO STEPHEN COLBERT
ASKED DIRECTLY IF SHE WERE PRESIDENT AND THE BANKS WERE
FAILING, DO WE LET THEM FAIL?
AND SHE SAID --
>>I DON'T BELIEVE HER AT ALL.
I DON'T BELIEVE HER EVEN REMOTELY,
I DON'T CARE HOW MAY TIMES SHE SAYS YES.
THE REASONS I DON'T
BELIEVE HER -- BECAUSE IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, WHAT WILL HAPPEN
IS HER ECONOMIC ADVISORS, WHICH WOULD BE SIMILAR TO OBAMA'S, WHO
WERE SIMILAR TO BUSH'S, WILL COME IN AND SAY NO, NO, MADAM
PRESIDENT, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.
THIS IS DIFFERENT.
IF WE LET
THEM FAIL, AND THEY WILL WALK HER THROUGH WHAT THEY ALWAYS
WALK THE PRESIDENT THROUGH, THAT WILL AFFECT ALL OF THE ECONOMY,
ALL OF THE CORPORATIONS IN AMERICA.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, GM AND
ALL THE OTHER OPERATIONS BORROW ON A 30 DAY RATE.
SO IF THEY
CAN'T BORROW FROM THE BANKS, THEY CAN'T PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES.
SO IT HAS CASCADING EFFECTS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE ECONOMY,
AND NOT JUST THE U.S. ECONOMY, BUT THE WORLD ECONOMY.
AND THE
ENTIRE THING IS BUILT ON THIS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A PONZI SCHEME
TO SOME DEGREE.
IT'S NOT, BUT IT IS, IN THAT IT WORKS -- YOU NEED
SOME CREDIT, AND CREDIT IS AN IMPORTANT PART, DON'T LISTEN TO
THE CRAZY GUYS WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN CREDIT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME
IF WE PULL OUT ONE PIECE FROM THAT JENGA IT DOES COLLAPSE.
SO
THEN YOU DIDN'T BUILD VERY WELL.
>>IT BECOMES JENGA UNCHAINED.
>>VERY GOOD.
THEY WILL TELL HER THAT, THEY WILL SAY DON'T PULL
THAT PIECE.
SHE WILL NOT PULL IT, SHE WILL COME UP WITH 1000
EXCUSES, THAT IS WHAT THEY ALL DO.
SHE IS HARD-CORE
ESTABLISHMENT, AND SHE WILL APPOINT PEOPLE TO TELL HER THAT
SO SHE CAN TURN AROUND AND GO, THE PERSON I APPOINTED TELLS ME
THERE IS NOTHING I CAN DO.
AND SHE DID NOT GET ALL THAT MONEY
PER SPEECH FROM THE BIG BANKS, GOLDMAN SACHS AND THE
OTHERS, TO SCREW THEM.
SHE GOT THAT SO SHE COULD DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY TOLD HER.
>>THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE SCARIER IS IF MOST OF HER BIG
DONORS WERE ON WALL STREET.
OH SHIT, THEY ARE.
AND WHAT SHE
SAID HERE, THIS IS MEANT TO REASSURE US.
AND WHEN WE SAY
THAT WE DON'T TRUST SOMEONE, TRUST IS A DIFFICULT THING WHEN
IT COMES TO POLITICIANS, WHICH IS WHY WHEN NECESSARY WE
SHOULDN'T HAVE TO TRUST THEM.
SHE SAYS IF THEY ARE TOO BIG TO
FAIL, THEN UNDER MY PLAN THEY MAY HAVE TO BE BROKEN UP.
FIRST
OF ALL, THEY ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL RIGHT NOW.
IT IS NOT A MAY, THEY
ARE OBJECTIVELY TOO BIG TO FAIL FOR THE REASONS THAT CENK JUST
LAID OUT.
AND EVEN IF THEY ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL, FOR HER THEY
ONLY MAY HAVE TO BE BROKEN UP.
SO IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE
CURRENT SITUATION OF THE FINANCIAL MARKETS IN AMERICA,
AND EVEN THEN YOU MAY NOT BE WILLING TO DO WHAT IS NECESSARY
-- AND HOW ABOUT THIS.
HOW ABOUT BEFORE THE ECONOMY IS ON THE
BRINK OF DESTRUCTION FOR THE SECOND TIME IN LESS THAN A
DECADE, HOW ABOUT BEFORE WE GET TO THAT POINT, WE BREAK THEM UP?
HOW ABOUT NOW WE BREAK THEM UP SO THAT WE DON'T GET TO THAT
POINT, SO WE DON'T LOSE MILLIONS OF JOBS AND FORCE HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OR MILLIONS OF PEOPLE TO LOSE THEIR HOMES, AND WE
DON'T ALSO WRECK ALL OF THOSE BUSINESSES THAT RELY ON THE BIG
BANKS?
THE ONLY PERSON WHO IN THE SHORT TERM IS HURT IN
BREAKING UP THE BANKS, BECAUSE THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE,
IS SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UPPER MANAGEMENT OR OWNERSHIP OF
THOSE BANKS.
THEY HAVE HAD THEIR WAY FOR WAY TOO LONG IN THIS COUNTRY,
THEY MADE IT THROUGH THE RECESSION PERFECTLY FINE,
AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER ONE.
I THINK WE CAN BREAK THEM UP RIGHT NOW.
>> LET ME EXPLAIN IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
BREAKING UP THE BANKS, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.
IF WE
BROKE THEM UP NOW, WHICH IS VERY SENSIBLE, BUT HILLARY CLINTON
WOULD NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO PROPOSING THAT, SHE WOULD FIND
THAT TO BE UNCONSCIONABLE.
WHAT THAT DOES IS, IT SPREADS OUT THE
NUMBER OF BANKS THAT ARE GIVING OUT LOANS TO ALL THOSE DIFFERENT
COMPANIES.
ONE OF MANY THINGS THAT IT DOES.
SO IF ONE OF THE
BANKS GOES UNDER, AND THERE ARE 100 BANKS, IT IS NOT THAT BIG A
DEAL.
IT MIGHT AFFECT A COUPLE COMPANIES THEY WORK WITH, BUT
THEN YOU COULD DO SHORT-TERM GAP FIXES ON THOSE COMPANIES RATHER
THAN THE BANK.
IF YOU ONLY HAVE SIX OR SEVEN BANKS THAT ARE
GIVING OUT LOANS TO ALL OF THE MAJOR MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS
AND ONE OF THEM GOES UNDER, THAT CREATES A DOMINO EFFECT ON THOSE
COMPANIES WHICH THEN AFFECTS THE OTHER BANKS, AND BY THE WAY THEY
HAVE ENORMOUS DEALINGS BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THOSE SIX OR SEVEN
BANKS.
WHEN ONE OF THEM GOES UNDER THEY PROBABLY ALL GO UNDER,
AND THEN EVERYBODY GOES UNDER.
SO IT CREATES AN ENORMOUS
SYSTEMIC RISK.
WHY WOULD WE TOLERATE THAT RISK, THAT AT ANY
POINT IF ONE STUPID BANKER/GAMBLER GAMBLES TOO MUCH
ON ONE OF HIS DERIVATIVE BETS, INSTEAD OF A $6 BILLION LOSS,
WHICH HAPPENED TO J.P. MORGAN, IT IS A $60 BILLION LOSS, YOU
CREATE THIS DOMINO EFFECT WHERE WE EXPLODE THE WORLD ECONOMY.
OF
COURSE WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT BEFORE IT HAPPENS,
AND BY THE WAY WHEN YOU ALLOW THEM TO DO WILD GAMBLING, WHAT
DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN?
THEY MIGHT WIN FOR A WHILE, THEY
MIGHT BE ON A GOOD STREAK BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF
GOVERNMENT PROTECTIONS, THEY ARE PAYING ALMOST 0% ON THE INTEREST
RATE THEY GET FROM THE FED, THEY GET TO GAMBLE WITH DEPOSITOR
MONEY.
INSANE.
>>PRETTY SWEET DEAL.
>>IT'S INSANE ON TOP OF INSANE.
WHY DON'T WE STOP IT BEFORE THE
INSANITY CAUSES A CRASH?
NUMBER TWO, AFTER THE CRASH, SHE SAYS
WE MIGHT HAVE TO BREAK UP THE BIG BANKS.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
FIRST OF ALL, NOT MIGHT.
THE QUESTION WAS, IF THEY FAIL AGAIN
AND THEY HAVE CRASHED THE ENTIRE ECONOMY AGAIN, OKAY, WE MIGHT?
>>VERY, VERY BOLD.
>>YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO IT ICELAND DID, WHICH IS TO
NATIONALIZE THE BANKS IN THE BEGINNING, TAKE OVER, STOP THE
BLEEDING, SAY TO EVERYONE WHO RELIES ON THAT CREDIT, IT IS
BACKED UP BY THE USA.
BUT THEN THE BANKS DON'T GET THAT
PROFIT AFTERWARDS.
THIS HAPPENS IN THE PRIVATE INDUSTRY ALL THE
TIME, IF YOU RESCUE A COMPANY THE COMPANY DOES NOT SAY I AM BACK
ON MY FEET, GIVE ME THE PROFITS.
NO, THE ONE WHO RESCUED IT GETS
ALL THE PROFITS, THAT IS WHY THEY DO THE RESCUE.
IN THAT CASE
THE GOVERNMENT, IF THEY WERE TO STABILIZE THE BANKING, WOULD
THEN GET THE PROFITS, THEN THEY WOULD PRIVATIZE THE BANKS AGAIN.
ICELAND HAS ALREADY DONE IT.
IT IS NOT THAT THEY TAKE OVER THE
BANKS AND THEY'RE COMMUNISTS AND THEY BRING IN STATUES OF TROTSKY
AND WE WIN -- NO, THEY PRIVATIZE THEM AND BREAK THEM UP AND MAKE
THEM SMALLER AND DO IT IN A RATIONAL WAY.
DO YOU THINK
HILLARY CLINTON, WHO HAS BEEN IN BED WITH THE BANKS GETTING
PERSONAL MONEY -- $200,000 PER SPEECH GOES INTO HER POCKET, NOT
INTO HER CAMPAIGN, THAT IS HOW SHE MAKES HER LIVING -- PLUS ALL
THE CAMPAIGN DONATIONS THAT HER AND HER HUSBAND HAVE RECEIVED
FOR DECADES AND DECADES FROM THE BANKS, THAT SHE WILL NATIONALIZE
THE BANKS?
COME ON, MAN.
I HATE TO TELL YOU, BUT IF YOU ARE A
LIBERAL, PROGRESSIVE, A DEMOCRAT AND YOU BELIEVE THAT, YOU ARE A
GIANT SUCKER.
DOESN'T MEAN HILLARY IS WRONG ABOUT
EVERYTHING.
OF COURSE NOT.
I LIKE HER EDUCATION PROGRAM WHEN
IT COMES TO TUITION BETTER THAN BERNIE SANDERS, I LIKE HER GUN
CONTROL POLICIES BETTER THAN BERNIE SANDERS.
BUT YOU
ARE AN ENORMOUS SUCKER IF YOU THINK SHE ISN'T ON THE SIDE OF THE
BANKS AND WOULD DO ANY OF THE THINGS SHE SAID IN AN INTERVIEW
WITH COLBERT.