Nearly seven-in-ten Americans say large banks and financial institutions have benefited the most from post-recession government policies (apparently, three-in-ten Americans don’t have a clue).

Pew reports that sizable majorities say the beneficiaries of government policies are large banks and financial institutions, large corporations and wealthy people. The beneficiaries according to the public:  69% say large banks and financial institutions gained the most; 67% noted large corporations, and 59% said wealthy people.

 

 

survey crash

and this:

DN_Winners_Losers
Source: PEW

People have finally come around to realizing what happened and who made out like bandits. I guess better late than never.

 

 

Sources:
Majority of Americans say banks, large corporations benefitted most from U.S. economic policies
By Bruce Drake
Pew Research September 20, 2013
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/20/majority-of-americans-say-banks-large-corporations-benefitted-most-from-u-s-economic-policies/

Five Years after Market Crash, U.S. Economy Seen as ‘No More Secure’
PEW September 12, 2013, 
http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/12/five-years-after-market-crash-u-s-economy-seen-as-no-more-secure/#winners-losers

Category: Bailouts, Really, really bad calls

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.

15 Responses to “Survey: Americans Realize Big Banks Got the Spoils”

  1. moobycow says:

    People aren’t just now realizing what happened and who benefited. People have known this all along, but the system isn’t run by average people and what the people believe and want has very little to do with how the government functions.

  2. Bob K. says:

    Barry, thanks for positing this, and I know you have been pounding the table on this for awhile, regarding the banks. what I don’t understand is why we can’t get legislation passed. Liberals hate the banks, and Tea Party Republicans see them as the AntiChrist. I imagine most rank and file conservatives see them as enabling big government. So where is the support?

    I have you pegged as a progressive, if wrong please correct me, and you want reform. So why can’t we get anything done? Does the banking cabal hold our leaders so close that we can’t dislodge their views?

    Thanks.

    • krice2001 says:

      I realize that I’ve posted some naiive sounding posts… but, “Does the banking cabal hold our leaders so close that we can’t dislodge their views?” Uhhhh… yeah! Hard to argue the other side on that.

    • farmera1 says:

      It’s all pretty simple to me and is summarized in the old quote:

      “He who has the gold makes the rules

      And since the supremes have ruled that corporations are people and money is free speech, where else does anyone think we’ll end up except for monied interests controlling things.

  3. Bob is still unemployed   says:

    > People have finally come around to realizing what happened and who made out like bandits. I guess better late than never.

    But the question lingers — what are “people” going to do about it?

    Are they going to vote the same Congress back in?

    Do the “people” have any idea how to fix the wholesale transfer of wealth from Main Street to the financial institutions?

    It is one thing to recognize the problem, it is an entirely different thing to take steps to fix it.

    • krice2001 says:

      Bob, all good points but who pays for the campaigns? It’s a monetary arms race in the political arena and the general population of voters don’t provide much capital, so the candidates that want to remain in office (which they tend to) generally stick to what their benefactors want.

      Candidates that are not playing the game are swamped by money from the other side with effective opposition research, negative campaign ads, etc. Plus don’t forget, effective redistricting at the House level. It has in many cases virtually guaranteed the outcome before the 1st vote is cast in many districts. Sometimes I think we only kid ourselves when we vote. (Yet I still do vote in every election)

      • panskeptic says:

        It is the negative side that is most important. Wall St. expects politicians to take stenography, and not go wandering off on their own with unauthorized ideas.

        Goldman Sachs was the largest single contributor to Obama’s first campaign. Once they found out that he deviated even slightly from their prescription, they gave heavily to Romney the second time.

        It didn’t work, but who wants to be the laboratory guinea pig in an experiment. Much safer to do what Wall St. says.

      • Bob is still unemployed   says:

        krice2001, I cannot disagree with what you’ve posted.

        Our country has devolved into a kakistocracy. Congress is owned by those who can pay with unlimited campaign donations.

  4. Gnatman says:

    Maybe the Robert Reich movie INEQUALITY FOR ALL will strike a cord and momentum will start to shift.

    Probably will not be showing in red states (dissonance removal strategy).

  5. Moss says:

    The spoils will always go to the well connected until the connection is broken. The campaign finance laws need to be reformed and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission must be overturned. Until then your vote is simply going to a different connected recipient.

  6. Molesworth says:

    Bob, Most people think Congress sucks, but think their own representatives, Sen and Rep, are one of the good guys. So they hate the overall but continue to vote in incumbents. Plus gerrymandering makes only a few Republican Representative districts competitive.

  7. drumdance says:

    I don’t feel like I’m qualified to have an opinion on this. Which policies do they mean by “economic policies?”

    TARP? That required the most amount of taxpayer money, but it’s not clear to me what the better alternative was, and my understanding is that it’s actually close to being in the black now. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)

    QE? Again, it seems like the only alternative was deflation and even more painful deleveraging than we’ve already experienced.

    Note: I’m excluding fantasy alternatives like returning to the gold standard.

    • The better alternative was to follow the law. Put insolvent banks into recievership, nationalize them, clean em up, spin em back out — tear the entire band aid off quickly.

      • drumdance says:

        Would this have cost less than TARP? Would deposit holders with more than $100k in the bank have taken a haircut? What would be the aggregate cost of that haircut?

        And what about AIG? They weren’t a bank so what law applied to them?

        I don’t think at the time it was possible to make a decision with any degree of certainty.