Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), along with unlikely ally Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), is launching an effort to break up the big banks and release their hold on politicians and the American economy. But how will he manage such an arduous task? What is the Obama administration’s take on this? Are there any politicians willing to join in the effort to stop the “too big to fail” mentality and stop subsidizing the banks? What progressive efforts can be passed in the Senate?


Vitter interview on BLoomberg

Category: Bailouts, Regulation, Video

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

5 Responses to “Vitter, Brown Introduce “Too Big To Fail” Legislation”

  1. Seaton says:

    ‘Twill be submitted, loudly expounded upon for t.v. for a day or two, and shuffled off quietly to some committee to die.

  2. chartist says:

    Why not? Everyone is currently bailed out and it couldn’t possibly happen again, right?

  3. Small money and large numbers can break the hold of big money in Congress.

    The ability to click a button in an email and lobby Congress with 25 cents may not do much. But if you can do that together with millions of others it changes everything. This is an institution waiting to be born.

    The political micro-transaction is a missing fundamental and an essential element of speech… and a transaction network built on this with certain civic/election oriented P2P capabilities forms the anchor for a natural monopoly… and, in fact, is the core capability for what Gavin Newsom calls Citizenville (a concept also endorsed by Newt Gingrich… this is a neutral utility in intent and practice).

    Moreover, the political microtransaction through a neutral vehicle is an anchor for the user to the provider of the capability in a way no other transaction type can. This has some significant implications.

    Patent is issued. My patent attorneys asked for a statement of my goals. I copy below my response:

    Let me see if I can give some clarity on goals… because I doubt they are typical.

    The pooled-user-determined account is a simple method to do a simple thing… make viable a very easy, one-click transfer of very small amounts.

    I think this is a much more important capability than many realize but we can put that aside for the moment.

    But unlike an invention for a new can-opener where even a single item could advantage a single user… this invention only gains its utility with broader use…. and its greatest utility with ubiquity.

    SO… in a sense the patent only covers a portion what’s being addressed here. And the capability has, I believe, a tendency towards natural monopoly.

    The network that can be created with such a capability is the true innovation here. And there’s a very good chance it will only arise once. I’m convinced that the characteristics of how its designed and constructed have evolutionary significance.

    This isn’t a “Right/Left” agenda but has more to do with ensuring that certain characteristics are preserved. I DO NOT believe this capability should follow the Facebook path (another example of capabilities tending towards natural monopoly) and that is because I believe these few capabilities are part of a very new landscape in human history and must not fall into the same trap.

    Bluntly, while I certainly feel I deserve something for this patent and realization of its potential… I’m not looking to be another “Richard Branson” but rather be part of helping to shepherd the construction of a vital landscape.

    And that’s why I want it protected and to prevent an improper evolution of this inevitable network. I don’t claim or believe that I have all the answers to how it should be designed… but I have a few…. and I don’t think that maximizing return should be the primary motivation for its design… though sustainability and resilience should be.

    This has been ready since 2008.

    P.S. This is not an innovation the TBTF banks seem to want… but others are catching on.

  4. Moss says:

    Why would any of the banks with ‘fortress balance sheets’ object to this? All the capitalism loving banksters should be in love with anything that fosters competition. Competition is the life blood of capitalism.