Robert Reich is suffering, let's hope a mild case of dementia ... For gods sake, every major paper out there has stated this in some form in the past twenty four hours ____The rhetorical hissing and spitting escalated Wednesday when Sanders charged that Clinton — a former senator, secretary of state and first lady — is not “qualified” to be president. It was a ridiculous thing to say. One thing it’s impossible to claim about Clinton is that she lacks an adequate résumé.
When challenged on the statement, Sanders resorted to the she-hit-me-first defense: “She has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote-unquote, not qualified to be president.” The problem is that Clinton never said such a thing. In fact, when pressed repeatedly by “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough on the question, Clinton touted herself as the better choice but refused to say that Sanders is unqualified. [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-democratic-race-has-now-devolved-into-nastiness/2016/04/07/4a273e44-fcfa-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory ] God he's dumb .. you just have to wonder when people insist on being uninformed so much .. . . There is no excuse for Robert Not Knowing the truth about Bernies 'mouthing off with cruelty' without correct information' OR his inferiority complex which causes this type of behavior or how simply wrong he is on so so .. many things? ..
.. deals with the Glass-Steagall meme Bernie loves so much .. Warren concedes Glass-Steagall would not have prevented the 2008 crisis .. Krugman is a renowned economist, while Reich is widely respected he will never be an economist in the Krugman mold ..
excerpt ..
The first domino to nearly topple over in the financial crisis was Bear Stearns, an investment bank that had nothing to do with commercial banking. Glass-Steagall would have been irrelevant. Then came Lehman Brothers; it too was an investment bank with no commercial banking business and therefore wouldn’t have been covered by Glass-Steagall either. After them, Merrill Lynch was next — and yep, it too was an investment bank that had nothing to do with Glass-Steagall.
Next in line was the American International Group, an insurance company that was also unrelated to Glass-Steagall. While we’re at it, we should probably throw in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which similarly, had nothing to do with Glass-Steagall.
Now let’s look at the major commercial banks that ran into trouble.
Let’s first take Bank of America. Its biggest problems stemmed not from investment banking or trading — though there were some losses — but from its acquisition of Countrywide Financial, the subprime lender, which made a lot of bad loans — completely permissible under Glass-Steagall.
What about Wachovia? Its near-collapse was largely a function of its acquisition of Golden West, a mortgage lender that saddled it with billions of dollars in bad loans.
Citigroup’s problems are probably the closest call when it comes to whether Glass-Steagall would have avoided its problems. It gorged both on underwriting bad loans and buying up collateralized debt obligations.
In that case, Glass-Steagall would have done two things: it would have prevented the trading losses and it also would have kept Citigroup from getting so big, which was one of the reasons it required a bailout.
But Citi’s troubles didn’t come until after Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, A.I.G., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fallen or teetering — when all hell was breaking loose.
Why do we have financial crises? Why do banks lose money?
If history is any guide, it hasn’t often been the result of speculative bets. It has been the result of banks making loans to individuals and businesses who can’t pay them back.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
