BILL MOYERS: Welcome. Every day brings another reminder of the awful unfairness that besets our country. Here's the latest that leaped out at me: "Rolling Stone's" report on “The Fallen” - the sharp, sudden decline of America's middle class. In it Jeff Tietz describes a handful of everyday people made homeless, now living out of their cars in church parking lots in southern California. Once upon a time, one of them, Janis Adkins, had a plant nursery business in Utah that grossed $300,000 annually. But two years after the financial meltdown in 2008 sales had dropped by half and the value of her land even more. She tried to refinance, but four banks turned her down flat – four banks.

Makes you wonder about all those big time bankers at the other end of the scale – the ones who came running to the government and taxpayers for bailouts worth hundreds of billions of dollars, then scooped up big bonuses and perks for themselves and went back to business as usual. And what a business! You've surely been hearing about the newest scandal in banking centering on Barclays Bank in London and something called Libor.

That stands for London Interbank Offered Rate and it involves a group of bankers who set a daily interest rate affecting trillions of dollars of transactions around the world. Your home mortgage, your college debt, your credit card fees - these could have been affected by Libor.

It turns out some of those insiders were manipulating the index for their own gain, to make their bank look better off during the financial crisis, to lower their borrowing cost and raise their profits. Picking our pockets, lining theirs. "The Economist" magazine describes it as “the rotten heart of finance.”

Here are some of the emails that have come to light: One banker in on the fix writes another, "Dude. I owe you big time! Come over one day after work and I'm opening a bottle of Bollinger." And another recruiting a colleague in the fix wrote, "If you know how to keep a secret I'll bring you in on it." After being asked to falsify information, an employee writes, "Always happy to help."

Another trader jots down in his calendar, "Ask for High 6M Fix," to remind himself to play with the numbers the next day.

Caught with its hand in the cookie jar Barclays agreed to pay nearly half a billion dollars in fines to British and American authorities.

And as many as 20 other megabanks are now under investigation, including Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase. One MIT authority on finance says, "This dwarves by orders of magnitude any financial scams in the history of markets."

All this explains why I wanted to talk to Sheila Bair. She's a hero to many of us for her long fight for an honest and accountable banking system. After years working on Capitol Hill, at the Treasury Department, the New York Stock Exchange and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission she was appointed by President George W. Bush to head the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the FDIC.

Now as Senior Advisor to the Pew Charitable Trusts, Sheila Bair has just organized a private group of financial experts called the Systemic Risk Council. Among its members: former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, former senators Bill Bradley and Alan Simpson, John Reed, once the chairman of Citigroup, and Brooksley Born, the former CFTC chairman who back in the 1990s accurately predicted an economic meltdown.

Its mission: to prevent the banking industry from scuttling the reforms created by the Dodd-Frank Act and hopefully prevent another crash. She has a book coming out in late September about the need for reform called "Taking the Bull By the Horns." She's also written two books for children about money and entrepreneurship: "Rock, Brock and the Savings Shock" and "Isabel's Car Wash." Sheila Bair, welcome.

SHEILA BAIR: Thank you, happy to be here.

BILL MOYERS: If you were trying to help some of those young people that you write for understand this business called Libor how would you begin? What's the “once upon a time?”

SHEILA BAIR: I guess I would try to explain to them that when you borrow money there's something called an interest rate which is your cost of borrowing money and there are different mechanisms for setting what that interest rate should be. And one of them is something called Libor. And we are discovering now that a lot of unscrupulous people were manipulating that interest rate apparently to line their own pockets. And that is something that should be severely punished.

BILL MOYERS: If there's any, is there one thing in particular you've learned so far that caused you to hold your breath?

SHEILA BAIR: This one caused to hold my breath, I mean, you know, Libor always troubled me. There's always been judgment associated with what some people call a fudge factor, there's always been judgment associated with Libor, the Libor survey. You were supposed to look at various factors, what your recent transactions were, what other transactions are, what the market conditions are. You can use judgment. You don't have to tag it exactly to a transaction.

But using judgment, and have a potential bias in judgment is profoundly different from open collusion with other banks to lowball or highball the rates to profit. I mean, these emails quite acknowledge that they were trying to manipulate the rate to benefit their trading position. And what's ironic is the trading desk of these banks were probably hurting the part of the bank that does the bread and butter lending.

Because if they were lowering their interest rate that would reduce the interest rate on loans, a lot of loans that the lending part of the bank conducts to benefit the trading desk. So they were even hurting themselves internally by doing this.

BILL MOYERS: So there are real world consequences--

SHEILA BAIR: Yes, yes, there are. Absolutely, there are.

BILL MOYERS: --to this? I mean, "The New York Times" reporting, "As unemployment climbed and tax revenue fell the city of Baltimore laid off employees and cut services in the midst of the financial crisis. Its leaders now say the city's troubles were aggravated by bankers' manipulation of this key interest rate linked to hundreds of millions of dollars the city had borrowed." So there are real world--

SHEILA BAIR: There are absolutely real world consequences to this. There are counterparties through all these swap transactions which is what they were trying to manipulate, and those counterparties were being hurt by it, absolutely.

It's shocking. It should be punished very severely. And I think there probably is going to be more information coming out about it so I think it's just starting, I don't think it's over.

BILL MOYERS: You say they should be punished, but the Justice Department the other day in this settlement with Barclays let the bank off if it paid the fine. So that doesn't suggest severe punishment, does it?

SHEILA BAIR: Well, you know, I think another thing that troubles me about all the enforcement actions that are brought-- and there haven't been enough of them, but they generally, just, they tag the shareholders, right? So Barclays Bank, the shareholders ultimately pay this. There should be punishment of these traders and higher up in management depending on how high it went.

There should be, not only clawbacks of compensation but severe civil monetary penalties against the individual traders. Make them pay out of their own pocket. It doesn't-- it's not much of a deterrent for them if their bank's paying for it. The consequences of their mistakes, not them personally. So I hope there is more of that. There should be certainly be more civil actions against the individuals and there may be criminal activity involved here too.

BILL MOYERS: Let me play for you something said the other day by the former regulator, Bill Black, whom you may know. He's a hawk on holding banks, bringing banks to the bar of judgment. Take a listen.

BILL BLACK: What you’ve just seen is a cartel in operation, which -- not maybe -- did distort Libor for the benefits of the largest banks in the cartel. It is the largest rigging of prices in the history of the world, by many orders of magnitude.

BILL MOYERS: That's quite an indictment. Barclay and possibly, he says, a dozen other banks operated as a price fixing cartel for their own financial benefit. What does that tell us about our financial system?

SHEILA BAIR: Well, I don't think we know all the facts yet. But certainly we do know that from 2005 to 2008 there were documented instances of Barclays according to Barclays traders colluding with other banks to influence the Libor rate. I think just that by itself shows a culture of greed, of people feeling they're above the law, above ethical standards, basically justifying anything to make a buck. And I don't think-- I don't want the government setting interest rates, I don't want that at all.

But I do want government regulation of how the market sets interest rates. And there were red flags about Libor back in 2008 and then the simple fix would have been to say that if you submit a rate to Libor it has to be based on an actual transaction that you actually borrowed money at that rate not your best guess, you know, today what I'm going to pay. 'Cause the process itself opened itself up to abuse and then it completely spiraled out of control. So that, you know, that's one of the main thing's that's frustrating about this crisis.

So many of the problems, the fixes were so obvious and we just didn't have the political will and fortitude to just tell the banks, "You've got to stop doing it this way. You've got to, you know, start basing this on an actual transaction." The fix was not hard, it was just never done.

BILL MOYERS: So humor me for a moment. I'm the proverbial Martian coming to earth sent by Martian control to report back home on what I can learn about this banking and political culture down here on this weird planet. And I come to you for help because you have this interstellar reputation for telling it as it is. How would you sum up this financial and political culture so that I can give a believable report back up there?

SHEILA BAIR: Well, I think we lost our way in the mid-2000s between free markets and free-for-all markets. We forgot that you need some basic rules and standards to regulate financial markets. We deferred too much to bank judgment. Libor is one example where we left it to banks to themselves to set important benchmarks.

So we need to rein that back in. And the things that worries me is that Washington, not withstanding all of this we still, and this horrible crisis and the horrible economic devastation that it has wreaked on so many individuals, we still don't have the political will and fortitude to get tough and say, "You can't do it this way anymore. I'm sorry if you're making money this way, but this is not a good, safe way to make money. You need to stop these types of activities." All the reform is still just around the edges. We just don't seem to have the fortitude to stand up to these banks and tell them they need to start doing business differently, profoundly differently.

BILL MOYERS: Where is the indignation index in this country?

SHEILA BAIR: Where's the anger? That's right, I know. I think I worry that the public is getting cynical. I think there's been one of the reasons I started the Systemic Risk Council is I feel the special interest lobbying is in a calculated way trying to slow down reform, complicate reform, water reform down. And the public loses interest, they become cynical about if the regulators in Washington can fix any of this and they don't exert counter political pressure to get meaning reforms in place.

BILL MOYERS: There is a group at Treasury supposed to be doing this.

SHEILA BAIR: They are.

BILL MOYERS: The Financial Stability Oversight Council led by Timothy Geithner, and wasn't JPMorgan losing billions of dollars on its risk under the eye of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency? I mean, if their regulation, their oversight failed, what makes you think outsiders can have impact?

SHEILA BAIR: Well, I think that's a very good question. I think there's a real problem at OCC. They are the main regulator for the largest banks. I think there's a very difficult cultural issue at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in terms of whether they protect the public or whether they protect the banks. If they're trying to protect the banks they're going to miss things because their perspective is going to be wrong.

If they're in, you know, and these banks have huge government exposure with all their insured deposits. The OCC in particular has a fiduciary obligation to protect the government purse, to protect the government exposure from these insured deposits. And the JPMorgan Chase trading, that was being done with excess deposits. That they were playing around with insured deposit money.

And yes, they have enough shareholder capital to absorb the losses, so this is not going to be an event that costs the government money. But it's problematic because these are clearly inappropriate risks that we're taking with government-backed funds that should never have happened. Never should have happened in the bank and the OCC should not have let it happen.

BILL MOYERS: But given how egregious and consistent and repetitive all these scandals are, how can we say there’s no political will? Why is there no political will?

SHEILA BAIR: I think the political money is corrupted. The Congress, I think in fairness to regulators, when regulators try to get too assertive they frequently get batted down by Congress. We're seeing it now the CFTC again, the derivatives regulator, that is the one that unearthed this Libor scandal and is working very hard to tame the derivatives market which is-- it's a terrible source of systemic risk. And the House is trying to back their funding, whack back their appropriations so they won't have enough money to carry out their responsibilities. So I just--

BILL MOYERS: Explain that.

SHEILA BAIR: I know, I don't understand it--

BILL MOYERS: You've been an insider.

SHEILA BAIR: I don't understand it. I think, you know, when in Dodd-Frank one of the chapters in my book is called “The Orwellian Debate.” And it's about the way financial reforms, the discussion about financial reforms were turned completely upside down. So things that would help stabilize the system were transformed into things that would hurt, you know, people when it was just the opposite.

You get this now trying to raise capital standards. Banks need to put more of their own money at risk. That would help tame risk taking if they stopped using so much borrowed money and used more of their own money in their operations. That's what raising capital is all about.

But the banks say, "Oh, you raise capital it'll hurt our ability to lend. It's going to raise, you know, costs for your mortgage or whatever." That's nonsense. But you know, say it often enough it becomes true. So I think there's been a calculated effort to confuse the dialogue, to confuse the public about what is in their interest to do. And people who know and understand these markets really need to stand up and speak the truth and let people know what needs to be done.

BILL MOYERS: Despite all of this there are still in Washington some politicians who cling to the free market ideology. If I were one of them and I was sitting here with you how would you try to walk me back to earth?

SHEILA BAIR: Well, we did not have a free market in 2008. I am sorry, but we had crony capitalism in 2008 and 2009. We bailed out basically anybody over $100 billion. We said the taxpayers are going to make sure you don't fail no matter how stupid you were. So that's not free market. And I think as a Republican I view myself as a markets-oriented person. I don't ever want to go back to that kind of situation again.

There are important new authorities in Dodd-Frank that will make sure we don't do bailouts again, that mismanaged banks do go into a bankruptcy-like process where they and their shareholders and their creditors take the losses, where their boards lose their job, their managers lose their job, their salaries are clawed back. That is all in Dodd-Frank. And so for people to say, "I'm a market-oriented person," but not want the market to punish mismanaged institutions, that -- again that's Orwellian. That's just upside-down. That's not a market. You have to suffer the consequences of your mistake if you have a market.

BILL MOYERS: But I think we're at some kind of dysfunctional crisis here. A Gallup survey done last year reported that Americans' trust in banks is down to an all-time low of 18 percent. And a recent Pew research survey reports only 22 percent of Americans have faith in the government in other words to do this, people don't trust the financial industry and they don't trust the government to do the right thing in regulating the industry. I mean, isn't that a recipe for paralysis and eventual decay?

SHEILA BAIR: It is. It saddens me greatly. I don't blame them for being cynical. I really don't. I fought for five years, made a lot of enemies.

But I did what I thought was right. And we did make a difference in a number of areas, not as much as I would have liked, but we did stop a lot of bad things from occurring.

BILL MOYERS: This is really why I wanted to talk to you, because you never really got your due. You wanted to break up the big banks, some of them. You resisted bailing all of them out. You tried to warn everyone about the abuse of sub-prime mortgages, you saw the impending housing crisis and sounded the alarm. You tried to put a stop to predatory lending. You were, if I may say so, the champion of ordinary people, and over and over again, you were right and you lost. So people are saying, “What can we do? What do we do? Do we take to the streets? Do we--

SHEILA BAIR: Well, we can put people in who are independent of the financial sector. And I do want to say it's not all banks. I hope people do differentiate. There are smaller banks out there and not all the big banks are completely complicit in all of this. So I think people should differentiate. But there is a cultural problem, no doubt. And I think it's more in the trading side, on the securities side of these very large financial organization than the traditional commercial banking side.

BILL MOYERS: Is Dodd-Frank a good thing?

SHEILA BAIR: We are better off having it than not having it. We absolutely are. There are things I don't like about Dodd-Frank. Like any piece of legislation it's a compromise. I worked on the Hill, you know, they say legislation's like sausage so you get a lot of stuff in there. But we're better off having it than not having it. A lot of it it's up to the regulators in terms of how they implement it. And I think there have been some strengths and weaknesses. There's not been enough coordination. I think the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which is comprised of all the individual regulators, needs to exercise more leadership in coordinating these rule makings and prioritizing them. I had actually suggested the Financial Stability Oversight Council when I first testified on Dodd-Frank before it became law.

But I had envisioned an independently chaired council that had its own rule writing authority to write system-wide rules. So you end this interagency negotiation that the industry frankly exploits, I mean, they will play-- try to play one regulator off of another. So that's one of the things in Dodd-Frank I'd like to see changed. But not withstanding that, FSOC, this council does have significant powers and they need to exercise leadership in getting these rules done.

BILL MOYERS: Is it even possible to regulate these big banks now?

SHEILA BAIR: Well, that's a good question. I think they are too complex. I think the complexity is more of a problem than size. A bank, even a very large bank that takes deposits and make loans, I really don't worry that much about them. But a bank that's into investment banking and securities trading and derivatives market making and insurance in addition to doing the bread and butter commercial banking, I think those are too complex to manage.

At a minimum, I think there's regulatory authority to get this high risk activity outside of the insured bank, the bank where there's direct government exposure with insured deposits. It's called ring fencing, but I wish for insured banks we would just keep their business to making loans, you know, payment processing is legitimate, trust activities, those are the kinds of traditional things that commercial banks do.

This derivatives market making, securities trading, investment banking, all of that should not be done inside of an insured bank. Insured deposits should not be used for that activity. Whether that activity has economic worth or not we can debate another day.

But at least make people who want to do those types of high risk activities go to the market, convince private investors to fund it. Don't use insured deposits that are government-backed and there's no market discipline whatsoever in that. Don't use those types of government-backed funds to take these kinds of risk.

BILL MOYERS: So is your new group going to try to-- going other advocate for these changes?

SHEILA BAIR: Well, I hope so. We're certainly going to-- we'll be presenting these issues. I mean, Too Big to Fail is front and center. And again I think Dodd-Frank, just so we don't go too far into these fear, I think Dodd-Frank has started making progress in ending Too Big to Fail. The funding costs, the costs to these very large institutions of issuing debt, funding themselves, those costs have gone up.

Their ratings, the credit ratings have gone down. The credit rate agencies as well as bond investors are starting to recognize that there's a reduced likelihood that they would get bailed out if there's another problem. So that's a positive sign.

If you increase their funding costs you're going to constrain their growth right there. But there's certainly additional measures that can and should be considered and there are a lot of good proposals out there, some on the Hill, Senator McCain has one, Tom Hoenig at the FDIC has one, Senator Brown has one. So I think we'll certainly, we'll be discussing all of those and hopefully taking a position on that, yeah.

BILL MOYERS: How do you break up these big banks when they're down to just six banks controlling so many of, so much of our assets?

SHEILA BAIR: Well, that's a real problem. And I think one thing that regulators could do as part of the-- one of the things Dodd-Frank required is for these large banks to submit what we call living wills, so they’re basically breakup plans. So if you get into trouble how can the government break you up and sell you off in an orderly way without broader systemic ramifications?

The problem is these banks have thousands of legal entities. The organizational structure itself is so complex, I've heard people call it a poison pill. How can you break them up? You can't even figure out how they're organized or structured. So simplifying those legal structures and dividing up the legal structures in accordance with business lines to facilitate a breakup I think would be very good market information to get out there.

'Cause I think, you know, shareholders, that's another possible pressure point on this. Shareholders are getting frustrated. The megabanks do not deliver good returns at all and they may well be-- I think they are worth a lot more if they were broken up into pieces. But again shareholders cannot be empowered to break them up if they can't figure out what the organizational structure, how to do it.

BILL MOYERS: The shareholders in Barclays and any other complicit banks are going to be paying for this, right? Because there's—

SHEILA BAIR: They, well, yeah. They are--

BILL MOYERS: --going to be huge, billions of dollars in--

SHEILA BAIR: That's exactly right. This is going to be a terrible consequence for Barclays shareholders, I can only assume. And again, you know, the risk management controls, the internal controls are so much more challenging when you're dealing with an institution of this size and complexity. Break them up, you know, have a commercial bank, have an investment bank, have a broker dealer. It's a lot easier to manage.

BILL MOYERS: Why do you keep going?

SHEILA BAIR: Well, I care about it. I mean, I think, you know, the human face of this tragedy was something that, still troubles me. And the fact that we never really dealt with the root cause of the problem, the mortgages, and we still have so many issues there. You know, the interface between this risk taking and the real world consequences that it had for Main Street folks is something that I find very troubling.

And maybe-- I view myself as a capitalist. I know that's a bad word these days. But I do believe in capital markets if they're appropriately regulated. You need some basic rules and the rules need to make sure that when people do stupid things they suffer the consequences, not the taxpayers, not their customer, they, they suffer the consequences. And that's the kind of system I would like for us to have again. And I do care about that deeply. I care about our markets and I want them to function correctly again, but they're not functioning correctly now.

BILL MOYERS: Do you see the increasing and vast inequality that's opened up between the top and the bottom in America and between the top and everybody else, do you see it connected to what we've been talking about, to the banks?

SHEILA BAIR: Yes, I do. I think with the inequality in income you've also seen inequality in debt. So the higher income people have much lower debt loads than the lower, middle income folks. So again this is something that needs to be corrected. We need to reinstate a culture of savings and wealth accumulation and have a financial services industry that supports wealth accumulation, not wealth stripping.

You know, some of it's in the tax code though, too. I think there do need to be the favorable treatment for capital gains. No, I don't think we need it. I think people who work for a living, what they do is just as valuable as people who invest for a living and, you know, why should, if you're a hedge fund operator you pay 15 percent and if you're a young person discovering the cure for cancer you're paying 35 percent on your income? I don't get that. So, you know, I think equalizing, making the capital gains on parity with income or income produce from work is something that could also help adjust this income inequality.

BILL MOYERS: I grew up surrounded by Republicans like you. You may be the last one standing.

SHEILA BAIR: Well, Reagan, you know, '86 we got rid of it, of the preferential treatment for capital gains. There needs to be some transition, you know. But it's-- there's really no-- I've looked at this a lot. There's no credible economic literature that says that the slower capital gains tax produces jobs, it's just not there. And it does produce a terrible income inequality. And it skews incentives.

So what do you want to do? Do you want to do, you know, be a professional investor and get your 15 percent rate or do you want to work for a living? I mean, why do we want to incentivize, we have too much investment dollars out there frankly already. And we don't have enough work. So I think realigning these tax incentives are very important. And this would-- I think that's a more direct way. You know, the millionaires tax is, that just adds more complexity to the tax system. And your problem is the capital gains preferential treatment.

BILL MOYERS: Many years ago when I was in Washington, we worked effectively with moderate Republicans. And you can't find many like you now. What do you think has happened to your party?

SHEILA BAIR: You know, I think they're still there. I do think they're still there. But it does trouble me. You know, I worked for the Senate in the '80s, for Bob Dole. And I look back at what we did during that time period. We did the '81 tax cuts, the Deficit Reduction Act, the '83 Social Security Compromise, the '86 Tax Reform Act, so much got done.

So I look at then and I look at now and I scratch my head. I think, and frankly this is both parties. I think there's just this rampant short term-ism that's kind of taken over decision making. And people are worried about their election cycle and not making their mark on history, not being statesmen, not governing the country.

There's this wonderful line in "The Iron Lady" movie when Margaret Thatcher, an elderly Margaret Thatcher is approached by a young woman and she thanks her for the great role model she was. And the elderly character played by Meryl Streep says, "Well, you know, back then it was about doing. Now it's about being." And it does, it seems to be about having the job, having the title, having the office but not about doing anything with those government responsibilities that you're entrusted. And I think that is on both sides of the aisle unfortunately.

BILL MOYERS: But Bob Dole and even Ronald Reagan believed that government policy made a difference people's lives.

SHEILA BAIR: That’s right.

BILL MOYERS: He cut taxes, he raised taxes once he saw the debt. That's gone.

SHEILA BAIR: But he did it in the right way, he took away loopholes and special interest provisions. Which is exactly what we should be, you know, raising revenue through closing loopholes, I think. And everybody says this is what needs to be done. But getting the people to make the decisions and take on the special interests and, "No, I'm sorry, you're going to lose your special tax break, but everybody else is too." Nobody's willing to show that kind of courage and say this is what's best for the country and this is what we're going to do.

BILL MOYERS: How can my viewers follow your work?

SHEILA BAIR: You go to the website and you can find a link to the SRC, it's the Systemic Risk Council. And we will be putting there our Call to Action. And our press release and our members and our Call to Action is all on the website. We'll be making additional pronouncements over the coming weeks and those will all be publicly released and go on our website as well.

So I hope we can be a source of information too for people who are confused about what we believe are the appropriate reforms that need to get done, reforms that will help them. And I think the public education function of this group is going to be very important.

BILL MOYERS: Sheila Bair, will you come back when your group is up and running and full steam and let's talk about what's happening?

SHEILA BAIR: I would be happy to do that. That would be great.

BILL MOYERS: It's been a pleasure to have you.

SHEILA BAIR: Thank you.

Sheila Bair on Keeping Banks Honest

Bill talks with financial expert Sheila Bair about the lawlessness of our banking system and the prognosis for meaningful reform. Bair was appointed in 2006 by President George W. Bush to chair the FDIC. During the 2008 meltdown, she argued that in some cases banks were NOT too big to fail — that instead of bailouts, they should be sold off to healthier competitors. Now a senior adviser to the Pew Charitable Trusts, Bair has organized a private group of financial experts including former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, former Senators Bill Bradley and Alan Simpson, and John Reed, once the chairman of Citicorp, to explore ways to prevent the banking industry from scuttling reforms created by the Dodd-Frank Act.

“I worry that the public is getting cynical,” Bair tells Moyers. “One of the reasons I started the Systemic Risk Council is I feel the special interest lobbying is, in a calculated way, trying to slow down reform, complicate reform, water reform down. And the public loses interest — they become cynical about if the regulators in Washington can fix any of this, and they don’t exert counter political pressure to get meaningful reforms in place.”

  • submit to reddit
  • Ken

    Let’s Hear it for Strong Revolting Women.

  • Anonymous

    Strong revolting women?  This could be interpreted in different ways.  did you mean rebelious? Or were you trying to be insulting? 

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Moyers,
    Oh I do keep trying.  Please try to eliminate the word “culture” from your vocabulary.  You probably do not realize how it sounds to your viewers, but every time you use the word “culture” you are taking the very real individual people who committed fraud out of the picture, you are enabling the individual bankers or traders, the very real and venal people who made the decisions, and subsuming them under a “culture.”  You and Blair need to stop with this “culture of greed” stuff.  There is not a culture of greed. There are individual people who use their place in an institution to enrich themselves at the expense of the institution.  We need names!  Name the traders whose e mails you read!  Oh but no, they get hidden behind the “culture.”  There is no such thing as banker culture!  There is American culture, Americans selling crap to investors for their own benefit, there are Brits selling crap to investors for their own benefit!  You need to stop with this the culture of every individual behavior thing, you are enabling the “corporations are people” meme with “banks are people” and have their own culture. 
    Now, Mr. Moyers, you still need to have Richard Slotkin on your program to explain regeneration through regression narratives and how they determine how Americans view others and how they are used to assert legitimacy.  This remains a glaring omission in your conversations on what things are the way they are. 

  • JonThomas

     Some of your points are extremely good.

    However, while Mr. Moyers use of the word “culture” does not seem to fit into your preferences for language and inferential meanings, he does indeed use the word properly and it does express and convey a the meaning…”a shared way of life.”

    Or, from…

    “5. the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.”

    Not only individuals (I’m all for your point of exposing the specific offenders,) but entire segments of the populace have this mindset and way of life in common.

    Perhaps, and I do say perhaps, they might be classified as sub-cultures, but the word “culture” is as befitting as any in describing the shared thinking and guiding principles which direct the lives of many, of those whom Mr. moyers is speaking, within western society and the world.

    All that said, I’ve butted in, and it would be interesting to hear Mr. Moyers views on this subject.

  • Liz Murray

    I find this segment interesting.  This is a woman who is Republican, and former head of the FDIC, and her syposium, which includes Paul Volker,..part of the Reagan Administratrion, both believe that Wall Street is out of control.  TERRIFIC STORY>

  • vjm

    it is not only the banking system that suffers from greediness.  in listening to ms bair, i could not help but think of the Enron debacle.  what i saw their greed do to so many and to my father, in particular, should never be forgotten! 
    i must disagree with vageiger, there IS a culture of greed starting with the corporate establishment and seeping into our society in general.  how much money does one need?  it would not hurt any of us to be more frugal and work at living more simply.  i can only live in one house at a time, drive one car at a time, watch one television at a time!  every thing other than food and shelter is a ‘want’ whose idea was created by the seller to make you think you cannot live without it.  

  • jlm

    This  was an enlightening discussion. I am a nervous middle class investor-a senior citizen, and a recent widow. Where do be put our  funds? What is safe? 

  • Sjsommer

    finally a republican i can get behind…where are the rest of the republicans who put the welfare of our economy and people first rather than their re-election or their political party… too bad she isn’t running for a national office.  thank you for a truthful, thoughtful and knowledgeable interview…it gives me a grain of hope that maybe reasoned heads and hearts will prevail.

  • Jayharrison

    Thank you very much for inviting Sheila Blair onto your show, I have never heard her views before and wish more people would take a similar approach. It’s a stark contrast from listening to Bill O’Reilly on Fox news.

  • Susan

    Who is the “we” who are going
    to reign this back in, as Sheila Bair says? 
    Who do you think is going to do this? 


    When I hear about all the
    junk that has gone on over the last 4 years – not to mention for years, even
    decades before that – and all the “trickle down” consequences (now THERE’S
    trickle down at work), all I can think is that it all boils down to crimes
    against the citizens of the world.  Let
    me say that again – CRIMES against the citizens of the world.  And NOBODY is paying for their crimes –


    All I can say to Sheila is
    lots of luck!  Who are you guys to fight
    against the big money that owns congress?


    Absolutely – I have been saying for ages that income should
    equal income.  No matter how you earn your
    money, it should all be taxed the same. 
    If we started there, it would lessen the incentive for the greedy b….’s
    whose life’s dream is to make a killing in the investment business & pay
    lower taxes while they do it.

  • Susan

    Sorry for the formatting – I pasted it from another thing I typed.  And I say crimes against the people of the world because people all over the globe have lost & suffered because of the actions of a relative few by comparison to the many of us out here.

  • Anonymous

    I understand where you are coming from, I confront this all the time in my classes.  I am an anthropologist and some of us (to few these days) take the concept of culture seriously and reject the “culture of every little thing” that even the dictionary supports.  Much of this is an artifact of the basis of American culture, individualism, and the need to assert that everthing important about us is a choice, including culture.  But I see Vietnamese culture versus American culture and see a real difference that the word is supposed to address, and that difference is not the same as American kids (youth) and American adults.  But I also recognize that I have lost that debate.  Still, the way over use of the term by Moyers (and especially on NPR – drives me crazy) also is a substitute of the thing for the person, a metaphor that obfuscates responsibility.  Banks for bankers is the most common egregious example to day.  Banks do not make decision, bankers do.  I appreciate your reply, I would also like to know what Mr. Moyers thinks. 

  • Anonymous

     Enron, has everybody forgotten them? Just where did they think all those people, who destroyed so many, went off to, some fair city in the sky? One of my many theories is that the Enron people who had learned so much about how to fleece people and make them love it scattered out and infiltrated other companies and banks and helped bring the whole thing down.

  • Anonymous

     cash, but it won’t grow. CDs but they don’t grow much either. Gold, but you have to store it. It’s a good question.

  • Anonymous

    She should team up with Elizabeth Warren. If anyone is interested in reading material on this subject I highly recommend Janet Tavakoli and Joseph Stiglitz.  Of course it’s easy to start getting angry when what we really need to do is get even. The banks, who have government guarantees, need tight regulation. Sure that will make them slow down and be less profitable but banking is supposed to be boring. It’s the backbone of our financial system and should not be controversial at all.

  • Deborahcarrino

    exactly what i’ve been asking for months now… “where is the outrage, and anger in this country?”!!!

  • JonThomas

     I find your description of “choice,” as it applies to “culture,” and people’s adherence to groups, ideas, and ways of life to be interesting.

    I really do hope that what you describe, a scenario in which the replacing of individual responsibility  and accountability, with a metaphor describing a situation of generalized abuse, doesn’t fully develop.

    It is a very good, and valid, point that you raise.

    I can only hope, as you say, that such individual persons guilty of offenses will be held accountable.

    I also hope that the condemnation and exposure of the “greed mindset”(“culture,”) through the excellent work of Mr. Moyers, his guests, and people all over the world who are disgusted, and have been victimized by these behaviors, prevalent with a large segment of societies world wide, brings a fast end to this current cycle of greed and profiting by other people’s pain.

    (Yeah, that was a clumsy sentence lol…still working on brevity.)

  • Migdia Chinea

    Banks are the new feudal lords and masters.  This is NOT a Republican v Democrats issue.  The Obama administration has had almost four years through his Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner to regulate the banks and it has failed to do so.  I place the blame squarely on Obama and will NOT vote for him.   But what is Romney going to do — more of the same?  Worse?  This is pathetic.  None of these people care one iota about the American people.

  • AdolescentProfessor

     Well I think Obama still needs support from the financial industry for re-election.  I think Obama’s stance towards regulation might change if he is re-elected.

  • AdolescentProfessor

    In my opinion, most people are too secure financially and/or too confused to be outraged.

  • Karl Hoff

    Over the years I have seen my investments slide, even though I have followed the ways to make money very carefully. When money could be made by holding during a bull market, I did. When that stopped, I invested in high dividend stocks as well as every other way of investing. When they took away the dividends due to pure greed, I began selling. After watch your show I realized that what ever I did to invest my money that greed would work to get it, then when times got tough, they would use every dirty dog trick to get what I had invested.  This is when I realized that if I just kept the money that I invested and put it into a insured savings account I would have the best return on my money because I realized that investing that would in the end lose me money chasing the tricksters whos only purpose in life is to get my money would be stopped. If one stopped giving people that make many time what the investors get, they would still be gaining money well above inflation and the cost of living at the same time having a nest egg for bad times. If one saved 10% of their income and got 2% interest and inflation & cost of living was 7%, they would still be gaining 5%. That’s far better than the -% I am now getting.

  • Iwontreadyourreply

     what planet do you live on! Most people are too financially secure, are you kidding?

  • JoJoFox

    Personal more hiding behind a corporation’s name. If YOU take a criminal risk, YOU pay for it from your very own pocket.  YOU pay the fine and YOU do the time. The corporation should pay a fine also, but the individuals responsible should not escape personal accountability.  There is NO substitute for JUSTICE, especially when trust is at such an all time low…

  • Susan

    Joseph Stiglitz is amazing.  Not familiar with Janet Tavakoli, but I’ll look her up.  I really admire E. Warren, too.

  • Susan

    I think people are too swamped trying to keep their heads above water to get as involved as they might like to.  My time these days is spent job hunting & I have little time to write letters or even read as much as I ‘d like to about all this mess.

  • Susan

    We’ll see (maybe)…  I am sorely disappointed, but not surprised b/c I was immediately disillusioned when I saw his financial team.  Congress ain’t helping either.  That doesn’t seem to be what they are there for – they are out for themselves (with a few exceptions) not the American people.

  • TZia

    Just note that the financial industry and their CEOs are donating the Rommey’s SuperPAC.   So keep in mind that not voting is a vote for Rommey.

  • Joed

    This was a great show. However I think it begged a question to Bair that was not asked. If at the same time Dodd Frank was being legislated we could also choose to restore Glass Steagall which one would Bair choose.

  • Wormyapplelady

    Bair said, “We can put people in who are independent of the financial sector.”
    Great. How and where can we find such people?

  • Susan

    And how do we “put them in?”  Good luck.

  • Dan_barnes

    I have no degree in economics, but even as an “outsider” I have been saying almost exactly the same Ms Bair says about taxes

  • Joed

    I don’t have a degree in economics either but like to think I have a little common sense. Let’s face it putting together this kind of private watch dog group is just window dressing. Its funny that John Reed is apart of the group. Wasn’t he the guy who, with his buddy from Travelers, called up Bill Clinton and convinced him along to abolish Glass Steagall? Wasn’t that brilliant move a total disaster? The real problem is that the previous Republican and Democratic administrations have changed the rules of free enterprise. Secretley giving deals to the banks, allowing them to prosper in the good times and socializing the losses to the tax payers in the bad times. And absolutley no jail time for anyone ; thats a farce. These banking institutions are still too big to fail and if another similar financial crisis happens again the feds will still bail them out. Nothing has changed. It is a pipe dream if anyone thinks Dodd Frank is the answer.

  • greensachs

    Where’s the rage?
    …oh, it’s here Bill.   We are disgusted by the incalculable ways and costs that ordinary productive people have been pilfered by a financial cartel *(the modern day money-changers), and the fealty of their servile politicians.   They do so with small regard for laws or legislators as their plunder merely buys both off.

    The productive, efficient private sectors of the economy are in effect
    subsidizing the most inefficient, unproductive parts of the economy.
     Productivity has been siphoned off to financialized corporate profits,
    politically powerful cartels, and bloated State fiefdoms.   Free Markets? or  a free-for all-markets?

    When does the grotesque greed, lies and political do-nothingness stop?

    If you’re not angered you haven’t been paying attention (they count on you for that).   We are at a “go to the window” moment in what formerly was America.

  • Pearl Barkley

    I am an African American woman who lives in NYC, East Harlem to be precise in the Thomas Jefferson Houses.  Let’s consider the irony of this being that Thomas Jefferson was a slave master and the population at these houses are predominately African American and Latino.  I coming from the “grassroots” of American society to use a more gracious word find it incomprehensible how anyone of reasonable intelligence  can be in shock or dismay over the behavior of the banking industry and the associated greed and avarice.  I propose that the lack of a high level of  morality in the laws which were set in place as the economic foundation of this country is the reason why there are problems with the banking industry today.  Slaves were one  the first and primary stock which was traded on Wallstreet.   So, to be precise if the economy started with greed, avarice, immorality, etc.  why should it be better now?  Profit has always been put before people since day one.  Slavery of the African is just one example.

  • Joed

    Pearl, A strong economy for all keeps us free. I reject that the profit model is totally synonymous with greed, avarice and immorality. Only the love of money does that. I am sorry that slaves were one the first and primary stock which were traded on Wallstreet. That was a terrible experience. Humans are imperfect and so are some of the systems they put in place. There are two sides of banking , commercial and trading and I don’t think they can be both painted with a broad brush. We can make things better as long as we keep up the good fight. Freedom is the goal, as much of t as we can effectuate.

  • Bonnie

    Thank you for this excellent interview.  Until Congress steps away from having Bankers in their pockets, nothing will change.  I agree with Ms. Bair that the traders must be personally punished.  Saying “I’m sorry” by paying a fine that takes away from the Bank’s ability to lend is a joke.  Shame on these Bankers and even more shame on those members of Congress who aren’t funding more regulators and putting teeth into legislation. 

  • Joed

    Bonnie, You miss the biggest perpetrators of the banking debacle. The executive branches of O’Bama Bush and Clinton all are responsible for this diaster as well. Joe D

  • lgfromillinois

    The Federal government has given a key-making machine to the banking industry, a machine that can make a key to unlock any door that they wish to.  It is a surprise that they use this key to loot our savings?  Who said to the Federal government could hand out that machine?  We did.  We have not demanded legislation and regulation from Congress and the Executive that curb the impulse to act to our detriment.  Both parties are accountable for allowing banks to spread into markets beyond commercial banking and to use their money to buy influence to protect their interest and undermine our economic security.

  • Joed

    @lgfromillions: Your use of the term the “federal government” is too generic. A lot of this banking stuff started with the executive. That’s how Glass Steagall got traction and passage. Clinton thought it was a good idea when Travelers and Citibank gave him a call then got the Congress to act in concert. So Glass Steagall goes away and we cannot get it back because nobody in Congress wants to talk about it. So I as a voter did not give them that power. And what about all the Treasury and Federal Reserve deals that were done essentially in secret. That had no voter influence and never will in the future if the executive decides to do it again. The fundamental rules of free enterprise have been changed in this country by essentially the executive branches being drunk with power. See Bill Moyer’s interview with David Stockman. The only way it seems to get this changed is first identify a force in the electorate that understands this problem and has moved using the democratic process to get their folks into Congress. Its all going to change in November. And if it does not God help us. 

  • Plefevre

    Thank you for another great show.
    It was interesting watching Ms. Bair timidly go around the issue of financial concentration without ever questioning the elimination of the financial pillars system brought about by the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
    Firstly, it’s impossible to let a market regulate itself if you eliminate the market. When the buyer, the seller and the broker are the same person conflicts will abound. That’s what the end of the four pillars did.
    Secondly, you cannot regulate greed, but you can pit greed against greed (that’s what a market is). Under Glass-Steagall the greedy checked and balanced the greedy.
    I fail to understand how one can say all the words (too big, too concentrated, insured banks should not be in the brokerage business etc.) without considering the return of the pillars. 

  • Joed

    Right on Plefevre. I meant to say at 12:55 that “That’s how Glass Steagall got eliminated.” Why isn’t anyone talking about its repeal? That’s the continuing problem – still there is risky trading on federally insured capital. No one has the guts to change it back

  • Paul Escamilla

    criminals who do not have to fear punishment have no incentive to change their ways. get used to this sort of thing.

  • Plefevre

    A real criminal will have his way no matter the rules and punishment. But the current system creates the scoundrel. All these conflicts of interest remind us that the occasion makes the thief.  

  • Allbwell

     Thank you for another of your exceptional shows — some of the best on television — with your interviews of two extraordinary and impressive  women.
     However well-intentioned Sheila Bair is and however much she subscribes to challenging special interests, she can only make a dent in the status quo.   It’s no secret as to why we’re locked into the same destructive, rigged economic-political system in the US.  It’s power of, by, and for the moneyed, with a lock on at least two of the three branches of our government.   Strong regulation is the key, but obviously Republicans have managed to turn regulation into a dirty word and to block effective reforms.  Any “moderate” Republican in Congress would be treated as a pariah, and would surely be crushed in a primary.  More than the public being cynical, some of the electorate is fear-manipulated and votes anti-government.   How else to explain the swing to the right in the Congress in the last election, as well as the absurd willingness to fall right back into the trap of the policies of greed and selfish capitalism that brought us the Great Recession.  You would hope we would have learned, but most of the blame and anger are once again directed at those in the government who are trying to salvage our economy, rather than at those who advance only themselves at the expense of the entire population.

  • Allbwell

    High finance criminals gloat over breaking the rules.  They think they really deserve their riches.  Most of them get away with their crimes — unlike  the criminalized poor that Barbara Ehrenreich described.

  • Laughing Eagle

    Fed spent millions to try to convict Clemens and Bonds, but no bankers from the financial crisis. Even no jail terms for anyone involved in the robo-signing of mortgages .  
     I guess as long as you don’t do drugs and your a banker, anything is ok.

  • Anonymous

    Why no mention of simply re-instating the Glass–Steagall Act from her or anyone else??

    Because they really don’t want reform, just the illusion of it.

  • David F., N.A.

     Another great show, M&Co.  

    Since the only place we can actually find a fiscally-responsible conservative is in a museum or on the History Channel, I’m a little skeptical with Ms. Bair’s efforts.  Once the Systemic Risk Council does offer meaningful recommendations, won’t these regulations be rewritten into a bill using lobbyists’ legaleze-spaghetti-code, and then stamped with a bipartisan financial Dream Team to sell it as reform?   Let’s be honest, we aren’t going to fix a thing until we get the money out of politics and ultimately be able to read our own laws again.  So, until then, aren’t we just spinning our wheels acting like we can actually fix the economy?  (2+2=is it 2014 yet)  

    As for Libor, here’s an article by Barry Grey,, and he talks about how Barclays correspondences prove that they falsify estimates in order to benefit their credit default swaps department.

    The reports issued by the three entities included emails, text messages and telephone conversations showing that from 2005 to 2007 the bank knowingly submitted false estimates, mostly high, of its interbank borrowing costs to the Libor board. It did so in response to employees at its derivatives trading desks who asked for phony submissions to benefit their bets on credit default swaps and other derivatives.

    Let’s see, what else, in the past 15 years, also benefitted CDSs (specifically mortgaged-backed securities and numerous foreclosures): Clinton trashes Glass-Steagall and deregulates derivatives, in the late ‘90s; Bush and a bipartisan Congress allows Freddie and Fannie to start selling no-doc, subprime loans, in the early ‘00s; the price for a barrel of oil puts a strain the economy when it skyrockets from $23, in ‘01, to $147, in ‘08; and healthcare expenses cause half the foreclosures.

    So now, 4 years after the crisis, all we’ve got is a foreign country pursuing Libor manipulation, and hope for future regulations here in the U.S.  It amazes me that we aren’t already in a full blown depression.  Oh well, there’s always next year.  Viva la Globalization!

  • UnlikelyHistorian

    congressman John Stormer wrote a book, about this happening, in 1963. Its aptly titled “None Dare Call It Treason”, which is drawn from an older saying, “None dare call it treason, why? For treason doth never prosperm therefore, none dare call it treason”

    Anyone who has read “The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire” (Gibbons) knows that robbing and plundering the republic of its wealth is the first step in bringing down the republic, and in this case, the finest republic ever known in history

  • Practical Fashionista

    I personally was not that impressed with this interview.  I found her perspective restrained by her desire to retain her Republican credentials for her next appointment to a future Republican administration.  She looks like a fighter only by contrast to a system of government that has entirely been captured by corporate and finance interests.  Obviously a bank cannot have insured deposits in the same institution as investment banks with traders.  Glass Steagall knew this in the 1930s.  The traders are going to exploit and manipulate and are quite comfortable making outsize profits doing no more than manipulating some numbers.  So once you keep them in banks this is what will happen.  This is why its so hard to honestly articulate why the LIBOR scandal is a big deal.  Why is this different than the Federal Reserve since Alan Greenspan artificially keeping interest rates low and causing the credit bubble? . That’s why the regulators didn’t stop it and probably encouraged it because it allowed things to look better and more stable than they in fact were.. So I’m still trying to grasp why this cynical manipulation of interest rates is so much more outrageous than anything else.  Ultimately everyone who counted was happy.

  • Frances in California

    No, Plefevre, the thief chooses with eyes wide open.

  • Frances in California

    Thank you for your cogency and realism, Pearl.  I guess there are no replies to you because you’ve said it all; nothing can come after.

  • Joed

    Tea Party

  • Frances in California

    No, no, IWRYR!  Not “most people” – just the ones with the power!

  • Frances in California

    Let’s make sure she’s Russ Feingold’s running mate in 2016.

  • Frances in California

    Ken was being facetious, VA.  Lighten up just a little, Professor – ever hear of the backhanded compliment?

  • David F., N.A.

    I haven’t read the book, but it appears to blame communism and socialism for the downfall of conservatism.  I personally think it was neo-conservatism.  Look at some their latest creations: the Iraq invasion, the Palin and the Tea Party.

  • kilimlady

    In front of the TV, watching reality shows! 

  • Joed

    same way Athens fell

  • Bcerone

    Those of this financial ilk tend to avoid the punishment of the guilty with jail sentences. They say  it should be civil penalties with a monetary fines. That is not punishment for the guilty. That is what is wrong with this whole picture. The avoidance of long term prison sentences in prisons with the normal public criminals who commit the everyday crimes of rape, murder, theft, or whatever is what is needed. Not to place them in federal prisons for the politically connected is what is needed. Put those criminal elites away for long term sentences without parole. 

  • Feral Cat

    How reasonable she sounds.  But she picked Alan Simpson to be on her Systemic Risk Council? Danger Will Robinson Danger.  Much talk and little action.  The system is rotten and it can’t be reformed.  The answer lies not in Washington or more of these “councils”.  Organize on local levels credit unions, worker owned businesses, mutual aid societies, wellness center, etc.  

  • Anonymous

    The last half-dozen banking scandals have not been fixed.  Why should we be hopeful that this one will be fixed?

  • plefevre

    I disagree with the Senator but at least Glass-Steagal’s return is finally being debated

  • Stephanie Simko-Weaver

    This is a Republican from days gone by. I can with a full heart respect her and listen to her as she is what republicans used to be and stand up for. Not corrupt crookery of today’s republican whack jobs.

  • Stephanie Simko-Weaver

    I agree Giethner is the problem and was well used by the Bush admin. Don’t throw the baby out with the water. get rid of Geithner and keep Obama also get rid of all in the House and Senate that have been there more than 8 years!

  • TieDyeClay

    The financial industry’s activities are not “stupid” or as Nightly Business Report would say “bad behavior.” Calling it these or “cultural issue” is called sugar coating. The path to true wisdom is calling something by its correct name. This is calculated & pre-meditated criminal behavior that in many ways has been legalized/normalized. Until the perpetrators experience enough pain as consequences for their behavior they will not change. There are being enabled/protected by the political system…that is why funding for regulatory agencies gets cut. Lastly, what about the victims of this criminality? Who makes amends to them. It is their resources who are being stolen.

  • Rob Harrington

    (yeah, we are cynical- lols ) Sheila “Stealya” Bair was part of the hiding of WAMU’s mass fraud issues in regards to JPMC and FDIC’s “aiding and abetting issues” in the receivership. FDIC covers for JPMChase but they sue each other over who is going to pick up the legal tab and the allegations of JPMChases’ “rewriting history” of the meaning of the (BOGUS) Purchase & Assumption agreement.

    confirmed here:

  • Ina Given

    Strangely enough when I share cute cat pictures it gets liked and commented on. When I share these articles no comments or shares. This is how the banks and corporations became our new feudal lords. Apathy pure and simple apathy.

  • Raymond Tokareff

    why is it that true journalism only comes from The Rolling Stone? the rest of the “Journalists” are nothing but corporate shills

  • Raymond Tokareff

    Why is the Federal Government more interested in POT SMOKERS than any thing else? They always take the lowest hanging fruit! Have you EVER see a SWAT team on WALL STREET? Answer: ONLY to oust Occupy Wall Street Protesters!

  • PhillyDissent

    hey…could you fix the link? I would like to read the article you are referring to.

  • Anonymous

    Since when has the ruling class in DC ever worried about making amends to folks who have been hurt. ?? I agree with your points especially about the one about having confidence that the justice dept i.e Lanny Bruer & Eric Holder will give them a pass next time aa well..even their successors. That is what Washington has become.

  • Anonymous

    If you think Glass Steagal is going return I have a bridge in Brooklyn I like to show you. Wall St money will never allow that. Talk is cheap

  • Anonymous

    Robert Rubin was Treasury Sec under Clinton when he signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall & then went over to run Citi into the ground with bad mortgages which he was warranted about. Folks think he should be serving time as well. What a govt???

  • Anonymous

    I might include the credit rating cos like Moodys & S&P.. Had they done their job they could have stopped the banks with their junk bundled paper.

  • Anonymous

    The first Bush sent prosecutors after the S& L financial mess & over 1000 went to jail.. That crisis was peanuts compared to the 08 financial bubble.. So far not ONE, that’s right, not one has gone to jail.; They all got a “get out of jail ” card from Lanny Bruer & Eric Holder. These 2 failed officers of the court and attorneys for the people should be the first to be jailed.