Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CNBC Pulls Video of Elizabeth Warren Smacking Down Anchor Over Glass-Steagall (VideoProvided Here)
AmericaBlog ^ | July 19, 2013 | John Aravosis

Posted on 07/19/2013 4:35:30 PM PDT by lbryce

Earlier this week, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) went on CNBC last Friday to debate the Glass-Steagall banking regulations that were adopted in 1933, and her proposal to update and strengthen the law in a way that would likely force the big banks to spin off some of their business and stop being so damn big.

As you can imagine, CNBC is no fan of Glass Steagall, regulating banks, or Elizabeth Warren.

During her appearance on CNBC, Warren basically kicked ass, the video went viral, with over 700,000 views in a matter of days, so CNBC pulled it.

Here’s what sits in place of the video now:

Blank Screen

And where did CNBC pull the video from? They filed a complaint with YouTube and had the video yanked from the Senator’s official YouTube account - but only after it had accumulated over 700,000 views in a matter of days.

Apparently, the buzz over Warren’s appearance got so great, that CNBC anchor Jim Cramer had to try to shoot it down on Twitter (h/t to HuffPo for that point):

There is some weird strain of thought that CNBC got beaten by Senator Warren. I like the senator but she had NO impact. Sorry..

— Jim Cramer (@jimcramer) July 17, 2013

Yeah, Elizabeth Warren had so little impact that CNBC filed a complaint against the YouTube account of a United States Senator in order to get the no-impact video pulled.

(Excerpt) Read more at americablog.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Politics
KEYWORDS: cnbc; dailykos; defenseofcopyright; elizabethwarren; glasssteagall; ibtz; jimcramer; jimkramer; lewrockwell; massachusetts; mediamisfits; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; randsconcerntrolls; usefulidiots; voteforwarren
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

1 posted on 07/19/2013 4:35:30 PM PDT by lbryce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lbryce

She’s a “white Cherokee”.


2 posted on 07/19/2013 4:39:26 PM PDT by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

On this issue I agree with her.


3 posted on 07/19/2013 4:41:20 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Rope please


4 posted on 07/19/2013 4:41:24 PM PDT by ronnie raygun (Yesterdays conspiracies are todays truths)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
I was on Wall St when Glass-Steagall was in effect and it worked great.

Commercial banks focused on lending (retail and commercial...even commercial paper) and investment banks focused on, well, investment banking (i.e. raising capital in the public and private capital markets).

Occasionally an investment bank would bite the dust...but at least its investors were well aware of the risk. And the Commercial banks were much more conservative...as they should be.

5 posted on 07/19/2013 4:42:07 PM PDT by RoosterRedux (You can't eat Sharia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

That was the interview where she proved she was an idiot who had no idea how things worked.

And CNBC had it pulled because, well, CNBC is actually a network that sells their video products, and so they do not want people to give it away for free.


6 posted on 07/19/2013 4:44:38 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

It’s snowing in hell: she’s right.


7 posted on 07/19/2013 4:44:44 PM PDT by Stormdog (A rifle transforms one from subject to Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

Me, too. But better make sure it has teeth, not watered down under the banner of “Comprehensiveness”. Devil will be in the details..


8 posted on 07/19/2013 4:55:11 PM PDT by SueRae (It isn't over. In God We Trust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer
On this issue I agree with her.

How so?

The Government does not belong in manipulation of the economy, they exist to provide and equal and just playing field for everyone, that is all.

Regulations, acts, central banks write laws to benefit those who are in political favor and give a quid pro quo, not for America and it's citizens in general.

9 posted on 07/19/2013 4:57:14 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Rats vs. GOPe = Same train, different speed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

Me too.

Might be the only thing I agree with her on, but she’s got this one right.


10 posted on 07/19/2013 4:57:45 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I just saw the clip up on that web site now. What did she say that revealed her ignorance?


11 posted on 07/19/2013 4:58:32 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

CNBC = Cowardly NBC


12 posted on 07/19/2013 4:58:49 PM PDT by MeganC (A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll never need one again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Not so long as the American taxpayer is providing guarantees on deposits, which we are. Given that, we should limit how much those funds can be put at risk, and also we should not be guaranteeing an institution to the size that it becomes ‘too big to fail’.


13 posted on 07/19/2013 5:00:18 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Yep, exactly.


14 posted on 07/19/2013 5:01:25 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

I worked for a Commercial Bank when Glass Stegall was repealed. I thought it worked ok. At least when the investment banks went down, they didn’t take the whole system with them.


15 posted on 07/19/2013 5:01:30 PM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes

My father in law was a commercial banker and he once said (I paraphrase), commercial bankers have a fiduciary responsibility to regular folks not to risk their capital. Investment banks have a different clientele and rightly so. No good can come from mixing the two.


16 posted on 07/19/2013 5:04:38 PM PDT by RoosterRedux (You can't eat Sharia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Warren referenced the 2008 “crash” in the context of banking deregulation being a factor. The culprit in the 2008 housing market fiasco was the fact that the government tried to intervene in that market and pressure banks to make unwise loans to home buyers.. on a massive scale, creating an unsustainable “bubble” that was bound to burst.

What, pray tell, would have happened to the housing market bubble had Warren’s new Glass-Stegall bill been enacted and in place? I believe there is a place for some regulation in the banking industry, but to put all the blame on “deregulation” is simplistic and can eventually lead to more problems if we’re not very skeptical and careful of the resulting imposition of new onerous regulations proposed by the progressive left.


17 posted on 07/19/2013 5:05:16 PM PDT by Let_It_Be_So (Once you see the Truth, you cannot "unsee" it, no matter how hard you may try.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
Not so long as the American taxpayer is providing guarantees on deposits, which we are

Well yeah, but we don't have a choice....I do see your point though.

Given that, we should limit how much those funds can be put at risk, and also we should not be guaranteeing an institution to the size that it becomes ‘too big to fail’.Yup, you nailed it...and that is my point....we don't have the choice.

18 posted on 07/19/2013 5:09:45 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Rats vs. GOPe = Same train, different speed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All


Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


19 posted on 07/19/2013 5:12:08 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Even a broken clock can be right once a day.


20 posted on 07/19/2013 5:12:15 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
A couple:
Under Glass-Steagall, major investment banks such as Drexel Burnham and Salomon Brothers failed without creating serious contagion in the broader economy.
Drexel-Burnham failed because it was engaged in criminal activity, not because it did risky investments.

Salamon Brothers didn't fail. It was bought out.

But in the post-Glass Steagall world of the 2008 crisis, the failure of investment banks like Bear Stearns and Lehman threatened the entire economy.
It wasn't those failures that threatened the economy. It was the freezing of liquidity. And neither of those banks actually had full banking; if they had had large commercial components, they would have had the liquidity to survive, as others did.

The point isn't whether some changes that might be similar to parts of glass-seagal would be useful; her arguments were simply silly.

21 posted on 07/19/2013 5:19:07 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Yes, I agree with him. It was an attractive idea, to have a one stop financial shop. Also the holding companies were kinda getting around some of the rules. Still, in retrospect, I don’t think it turned out to be a good thing.


22 posted on 07/19/2013 5:22:56 PM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; ...

Thanks CharlesWayneCT.

What’s Fauxahontas’ FR nick?


23 posted on 07/19/2013 5:23:48 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Annoyingly, I can’t find a full transcript of her comments, and I’m not listening to the video again and again to try to get it.

There’s another place where she claims that her bill will prevent all boom-and-bust cycles, and keep all banks from ever going bankrupt again.


24 posted on 07/19/2013 5:25:05 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
Ten bucks says that Liawatha will run for the White House.Sooner rather than later.
25 posted on 07/19/2013 5:27:25 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (If Obama Had A City It Would Look Like Detroit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
On this issue I agree with her.

How so?

Because I would like to limit the amount of government funds that banks can grab from taxpayers through bailouts. The FDIC was initiated in the Great Depression to boost confidence in the banking system by guaranteeing regular citizen's customer deposits. Glass-Steagall was also implemented around the same time to separate retail banking, in which the FDIC guarantees, from commercial banking. Banks would have to absorb the losses themselves from commercial banking activity that went bad. This protected ordinary citizens from the excess risk taking of the banks pretty well.

When Glass-Steagall was repealed, retail and commercial banks began to combine, and engage in more risky activity, especially when interest rates kept going down. The line between what the government was obligated to support became cloudy, as in 2008. In order to protect the consumers, the government got conned into bailing out the whole banking system.

We are not going to get rid of FDIC insurance, but I would like to reduce the government's exposure, (and therefore my exposure as a taxpayer), to the bank's risky trading activity. Separating retail banking under FDIC coverage from speculative trading would help that.

If this doesn't happen, the FDIC is not big enough to bail out the banks, and we are not going to pass another 800 billion TARP program to bail out the banks. What would happen is what did happen in Cypress, a bail-in. This would mean that all deposits would be confiscated and turned into the bank's equity, i.e. stock, at a very low rate of conversion. Depositors would be wiped out. This isn't speculation, the US and Europe have published documents stating that this is the plan for another 2008 style meltdown.

26 posted on 07/19/2013 5:31:31 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

That comes to what, 0.0001% of the time?


27 posted on 07/19/2013 5:34:09 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

Here’s an idea: in order to get banks to not make risky loans, don’t force them to do so.


28 posted on 07/19/2013 5:37:22 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

There are huge problems with her analysis though.

The recent bank failures weren’t caused by less regulation, they were caused because the equal lending laws that forced banks to consider bad loan prospects or be sued for discrimination.

When the banks were forced to relax standards by law, the average consumer simply jumped on the band wagon. By the time they were done, over one fifth the housing market were financed with loans that artificially inflated housing prices and consumers that had no business taking out those loans.

People like our president organized against the banks and helped create the mess while consistently saying there was no crisis. Let’s look back on this politicians views on these loans at the time. Bet she said the same as Obama, Clinton, and the leading democRATs who were on the committees who pushed these loans on the banks.

Now she’s for more regulation. Total crap.


29 posted on 07/19/2013 5:37:51 PM PDT by Nachum (The Obama "List" at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

That’s awesome, but investment banking didn’t cause the crisis. Glass-Steagall didn’t prevent bad mortgages. Wouldn’t have prevented the crisis.


30 posted on 07/19/2013 5:41:27 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

My point was that the government has no business manipulating the economy, period.

The government should do its job in enforcing laws that create a lawful, just playing field.

When the government starts writing laws to favor one over another, corruption occurs....i.e control, manipulation, favor and power to the highest bidder.

When you agree with the high cheekbone one, do you really believe she has Americas interest at heart or is she just playing economic manipulation games...or is she trying to get elected to the power center and prestige of DC?


31 posted on 07/19/2013 5:42:48 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Rats vs. GOPe = Same train, different speed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Elizabeth Warren’s bill will eliminate the business cycle (and the government’s influence upon it). A Freeper will post a thread in support of her bill, presently. Stay tuned.


32 posted on 07/19/2013 5:44:12 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

We don’t need more regulation, we need more accountability. Had we allowed these giant banks to fail this long nightmare would be over by now and the giant banks would be gone for a generation or more!


33 posted on 07/19/2013 5:44:56 PM PDT by qman (The communist usurper must go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Bring back American jobs.

Now.

34 posted on 07/19/2013 5:47:04 PM PDT by 1rudeboy (Just felt something was missing from this thread.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer
We are not going to get rid of FDIC insurance, but I would like to reduce the government's exposure, (and therefore my exposure as a taxpayer), to the bank's risky trading activity. Separating retail banking under FDIC coverage from speculative trading would help that.

Unless it stops bad loans, separating them wouldn't prevent another crisis.

35 posted on 07/19/2013 5:47:08 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee
She’s a “white Cherokee”.

Chief "Crapping Eagle".

36 posted on 07/19/2013 5:47:52 PM PDT by BerryDingle (I know how to deal with communists, I still wear their scars on my back from Hollywood-Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

High speed rail, it’s the only thing that can save us.


37 posted on 07/19/2013 5:48:48 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Reminds me of that “How to Do It” sketch from Monty Python.


38 posted on 07/19/2013 5:49:13 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Obama has been shutting down smaller banks - deposits migrate to bigger ones until we have a handful that is easier for the gov to control


39 posted on 07/19/2013 5:50:28 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Thanks.

Of course I haven’t seen her reference to it, but I’m not sure the cause of Drexel’s downfall makes much difference for her argument. If Salomon was a forced solvency sale, I certainly wasn’t aware of it, or at least I don’t remember it that way—it was a ways back! I see the Salomon reference was part of the Senators’ official statement on their bill, so I presume there was something to it.

It wasn’t the large commercial components that saved the commercial banks, however, as their access to bailout funds from the Fed—which is why the last big surviving investment banks made such last minute conversions in order to get that relief themselves, IIRC.

I don’t know how abrupt or how phased their bill is, but something G-S-like is one of the best ways I know to limit the risk to the system—and to taxpayers.

Doesn’t really surprise me if she made silly statements. Saying a G-S return would take away all risk or failures is a silly level of oversell.


40 posted on 07/19/2013 5:52:25 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
I hate this C-word. Eliza-poca-jaweeah-breath Whoring is one of ther biggest liars and scumbags this side of Barbie O'Bunghole. May she expire in excruiciating agony choking on gallons of her own puke.

8-\

41 posted on 07/19/2013 5:56:53 PM PDT by Gargantua (America's starting to smell like a steaming pile of Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Yepper, remember IndyMac: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8713


42 posted on 07/19/2013 5:57:00 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Rats vs. GOPe = Same train, different speed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
My background was mathematics even though I had an MBA. I understood and introduced very profitable but complex ideas to folks who really didn't care exactly how the profit was made, provided it was legal. They never took the time to study the products in depth.

My take on the mortgage backed concept is that it was a demand driven product. By that I mean that firms bought and sold them because they were profitable (no mention of their danger).

I think investment banks are better run as partnerships, because the partners take the time to determine how their capital is being risked. As a partner, I would have wanted to understand every detail of mortgage backed securities before I put my wealth at risk.

When investment bankers capital is not at risk (or an investment bank gets its equity elsewhere), the bar is lowered significantly.

Furthermore, the manner of compensation contributed to the problem. If you as a partner pay me as a junior investment banker on annual performance, I can collect a massive bonus and don't really worry about next year and the year thereafter. Solution, partners either must more carefully analyze products and/or compensation must not be so immediate.

The problems of matching risk and reward were fundamental to the collapse of Wall St. This stuff is way over the heads of managers whose capital is not at risk. A man or woman whose entire family wealth is at risk in said investment bank is going to be much more careful about making sure the products sold are solid investments for their customers...and, in the long run, for themselves.

43 posted on 07/19/2013 5:57:42 PM PDT by RoosterRedux (You can't eat Sharia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer
On this issue I agree with her.

Me too. I had 25 years as a regulator and almost 9 as a banker. For the most part, she is a leftist hack and sickening to behold. But she is right on here.

44 posted on 07/19/2013 6:14:40 PM PDT by RatRipper (Self-centeredness, greed, envy, deceit and lawless corruption has killed this once great nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux
When investment bankers capital is not at risk (or an investment bank gets its equity elsewhere), the bar is lowered significantly.

You bet. Their leverage got to be ridiculous. They still didn't cause the crisis. Glass-Steagall still wouldn't have stopped bad mortgages.

45 posted on 07/19/2013 6:23:26 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
Thoma Sowell disagrees with Liawatha. I think I'll go with what he says, rather than some lying 60's anti-capitalist/collectivist, who doesn't know jack squat about economics, especially money and banking.

I can't believe anyone would agree with anything this POS has to say.

46 posted on 07/19/2013 6:33:26 PM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

I think I explained how the mortgage crisis occurred. It was not Glass-Steagall but the capital formation (and oversight) of investment banks.


47 posted on 07/19/2013 6:36:31 PM PDT by RoosterRedux (You can't eat Sharia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

The investment banks weren’t writing the bad mortgages.


48 posted on 07/19/2013 6:46:04 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
"That comes to what, 0.0001% of the time?"

LOL something like that.

49 posted on 07/19/2013 6:52:20 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

Thank you for that detailed response. I learn a great deal from freepers like you.


50 posted on 07/19/2013 6:52:33 PM PDT by JerseyDvl (Cogito Ergo Doleo Soetoro, ABO and of course FUBO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson