Bernie Sanders struggled to explain his Wall Street plans in an uncomfortable new interview - Polidicks

I feel like most of what people are voting him for is the will he has to try and get this done, not the fact that he has an instant fix-it button in the shape of a stack of papers outlying every single move he is going to make.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50077230]IMO, the interesting points of the interview are: - He won't let any companies move anything to another country with cheaper labor or less environmental control. So basically every clothing manufacturer, every electronics manufacturer, etc. would have to bring all their manufacturing back. The quote: "I will stop it by renegotiating all of the trade agreements that we have. And by establishing principles that says that what fair trade is about is you are going to take into consideration the wages being paid to workers in other countries. And the environmental standards that exist." and: "And what fair trade means to say that it is fair. It is roughly equivalent to the wages and environmental standards in the United States." - He sees the corporate moving of manufacturing out of the US as a conspiracy of the upper class to gain power in the US. Quote: "And I think there became a very organized effort, on the part of corporate America, and very powerful forces, to say, "Look, we are in trouble. And we're going to have to fight back." And I think what you have seen in a number of ways, trade being one way" - He has no idea about any actual illegal actions that the bankers had done. He just assumes that they must be guilty of something. Quote: "I suspect that there are [ particular statutes that a prosecutor could have or should have invoked to bring indictments]." - He critiques a lot of Israeli policy, but won't provide any alternative answer, saying, "You're asking me now to make not only decisions for the Israeli government but for the Israeli military, and I don't quite think I'm qualified to make decisions." In my mind, critiquing a political or military action without any alternative in mind is literally useless. The rightness of any political or military action is relative to possible alternatives. So to just say something is bad doesn't really help at all. He also thought 10,000 Palestinians as opposed to 2,300 were killed in the last engagement. It just shows that his outlooks is pretty skewed. - He would want to imprison a captured ISIS commander outside of the US "somewhere near the locale where that person was captured." I'm not quite sure how this is different than something like Guantonamo. - He think that selling a person "10,000 rounds of ammunition" is grounds for suing the manufacturer if that person then goes on a shooting spree. He also uses the totally useless term "assault weapons."[/QUOTE] I could pick apart your entire post, but for your last point. He reiterated multiple times that only if the gun manufacturer knew of ill intent before selling ammo/guns should they be sued. He voted to give gun manufacturers immunity in court.

Concerning his trade agreement stance, I do agree corporate America is stealing all the power and the fact they send jobs off to countries with lower wages and less environmental control to save a few pennies is enough proof. I can understand if a company wants to move abroad to a cheaper country with lower taxes, but it should be a country with the same standards as us. That is indeed fair.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50076976]fantastic interview[/QUOTE] Oh so this is where that came from. I think it's cute (?) that bernie thinks you use tokens. Also the hell is that last comment? Is that making fun of his age or socialism?

"He also said that he hadn't studied the legal implications..." Like no shit what do you expect from a man who's never been a lawyer. Why don't you go ask Trump about the legal implication of his wall on property law?

[QUOTE=Srillo;50077061]Great answer.[/QUOTE] To a loaded question, there isn't a good answer to "where [will you house the prisoner]", and that's not really his job to select prisons. He can't say Guantanamo Bay, because he likely doesn't support its existence (it's also hemorrhaging money despite only having a handful of inmates), he can't say a domestic prison because the reporter would blast him for bringing a terrorist into the country, he can't say a foreign prison because he doesn't and wouldn't have that authority, and he can't say a black site because that's an incriminating thing to say. I suppose he could say a military base and leave it at that, but he likely didn't think of it and the reporter would have probably asked "which one".

[QUOTE=cody8295;50077277]I could pick apart your entire post, but for your last point. He reiterated multiple times that only if the gun manufacturer knew of ill intent before selling ammo/guns should they be sued. He voted to give gun manufacturers immunity in court.[/QUOTE] I'm just going off the interview. He just said that someone "might be suspicious" of a person buying 10,00 rounds. He didn't say that they needed to know of ill intent.

[QUOTE=cody8295;50077063]On breaking up big banks: he understands the impact that "too big to fail" banks have and thus proposes breaking them up. Why should he be responsible to answer the ambiguous questions the reporter asks him What would the institution be? Where would the investing go? How should sanders know?[/QUOTE] I mean, he could, y'know, ask somebody even vaguely interested in finance. It's fine if he wants to talk about breaking up the banks. That sounds like, to me, he has an idea and wants to figure out how to do it. But it's still just the same vague promises as any other candidate throughout the years. Maybe he'll do it, maybe he won't. But the [b][i]only[/i][/b] hard policy he's stated he'll implement is just a 0.5% tax on stock trades to kill high-frequency trading, except he didn't actually bother to do any research on the implications of killing off high-frequency trading (added volatility, wider bid-ask spread, less liquidity), instead just parading the banner of "this did bad thing so we need to end it". He doesn't realize how absolutely ridiculous a 0.5% tax would be. It would not only kill HFT, but it would make day trading impossible as well. It's not like he needs to wait. There are people out there that would be more than happy to discuss his plans with him. Keep in mind, this guy's been in congress for 25 years, quite successfully - it's not like he has no fucking clue how the government works, and has no connections to anyone willing to help him sort out a plan. But that's not what he needs. He doesn't need to be reasonable and well-rounded - he needs to win the election, and if these vague promises to people with no idea how banks operate and what high-frequency trading does helps him win, that's politics. But when he somehow manages to get the completely wrong idea and his only real hardcore proposition is practically universally criticized by the finance world because it's ridiculous overkill... that does turn me off a bit.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50077682]I'm just going off the interview. He just said that someone "might be suspicious" of a person buying 10,00 rounds. He didn't say that they needed to know of ill intent.[/QUOTE] You know you can't buy 100 lbs of amonium nitrate fertilizer without being tracked in a database, 10,000 rounds of ammunition in one purchase out of the blue is sort of suspicious too

[QUOTE=Sableye;50078058]You know you can't buy 100 lbs of amonium nitrate fertilizer without being tracked in a database, 10,000 rounds of ammunition in one purchase out of the blue is sort of suspicious too[/QUOTE] It's not the fertilizer company's job to make sure people don't use their product to make bombs. The government is the one that tracks that kind of stuff. Sanders said that something like selling 10,000 rounds to a person could be enough to actually prosecute the seller for responsibility if that person goes and does something bad with it.

It's quite refreshing to have a politician be honest and say "I don't know" rather than just saying something irrelevant to deflect attention

[QUOTE=Snowmew;50078024]I mean, he could, y'know, ask somebody even vaguely interested in finance. It's fine if he wants to talk about breaking up the banks. That sounds like, to me, he has an idea and wants to figure out how to do it. But it's still just the same vague promises as any other candidate throughout the years. Maybe he'll do it, maybe he won't. But the [b][i]only[/i][/b] hard policy he's stated he'll implement is just a 0.5% tax on stock trades to kill high-frequency trading, except he didn't actually bother to do any research on the implications of killing off high-frequency trading (added volatility, wider bid-ask spread, less liquidity), instead just parading the banner of "this did bad thing so we need to end it". He doesn't realize how absolutely ridiculous a 0.5% tax would be. It would not only kill HFT, but it would make day trading impossible as well. It's not like he needs to wait. There are people out there that would be more than happy to discuss his plans with him. Keep in mind, this guy's been in congress for 25 years, quite successfully - it's not like he has no fucking clue how the government works, and has no connections to anyone willing to help him sort out a plan. But that's not what he needs. He doesn't need to be reasonable and well-rounded - he needs to win the election, and if these vague promises to people with no idea how banks operate and what high-frequency trading does helps him win, that's politics. But when he somehow manages to get the completely wrong idea and his only real hardcore proposition is practically universally criticized by the finance world because it's ridiculous overkill... that does turn me off a bit.[/QUOTE] You state reducing high frequency trading would increase volatility. In the short term this might be true but ultimately HFT increases volatility. Protecting/advocating something arbitrarily is just as bad as opposing something arbitrarily. [quote=http://mitsloan.mit.edu/groups/template/pdf/Zhang.pdf] I find that high-frequency trading is positively correlated with stock price volatility after controlling for firm fundamental volatility and other exogenous determinants of volatility. The positive correlation is stronger among the top 3,000 stocks in market capitalization and among stocks with high institutional holdings. The positive correlation is also stronger during periods of high market uncertainty. Furthermore, I find that, high-frequency trading hinders the market’s ability to incorporate information about firm fundamentals into asset prices, as high-frequency trading causes stock prices to overreact to fundamental news. [/quote] HFT, in its current form, is a bad thing.

You know i'd love to start a Politics News Network that was just 100% honest about everything said and what actually happened, no bullshit, no clickbaiting, just everything you need to know with research and integrity,god knows nothing like that actually exists nowadays.

[QUOTE=Aztec;50076923]Because today is a voting day and the pundits always go nuts on voting days. [img]https://i.gyazo.com/9db6f1159f3dd35d8e0a2bdfae65021a.png[/img][/QUOTE] Why do you spin shitty journalism somehow as a fault of Sanders? [editline]6th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Source;50079341]You know i'd love to start a Politics News Network that was just 100% honest about everything said and what actually happened, no bullshit, no clickbaiting, just everything you need to know with research and integrity,god knows nothing like that actually exists nowadays.[/QUOTE] You mean something like the beginning of The Newsroom?

[QUOTE=Killuah;50079662] You mean something like the beginning of The Newsroom?[/QUOTE] Exactly!

I read a part of it and it seems more like he was humble, if he didn't know something he admitted it. Most other candidates would just reassure the journalist and spew bullshit.

This election is fucking appalling