Why Are The Big Banks Suddenly Afraid?

• THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION (Satanic) Protocol XII – Control of the Press
  …. WE CONTROL THE PRESS
  4. NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.
  –
• THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION (Satanic) PROTOCOL No. 10
  1. … I beg you to bear in mind that governments and people are content in the political with outside appearances. ….
  –
• This article is largely ‘noise’, political theatre for sheeple consumption. It is to placate the sheeple, selling them the idea that something is being done to the TBTF banks. Let me assure you that the Illuminist agenda will proceed as per normal. Don’t listen to what the Illuminist MSM say, it is the actions you should observe. By having articles like this, the sheeple will be lulled into believing something is being done and thus do nothing.
  –
• The Illuminist banksters are continuing their consolidation of power and the banking system. Some of their own banks will be sacrificed/detonated to cause other banks to fail and then all will be swallowed up by a few Illuminist banks. The 2 Illuminist banks that will do the gobbling up will likely be: Goldman Sucks and JP Morgue!
  –
  Why Are the Big Banks Suddenly Afraid? 
  by SIMON JOHNSON, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/ 
  Simon Johnson is the Ronald A. Kurtz Professor of Entrepreneurship at the M.I.T. Sloan School of Management and co-author of “White House Burning: The Founding Fathers, Our National Debt, and Why It Matters to You.”
  –
  Top executives from global megabanks are usually very careful about how they defend both the continued existence, at current scale, of their organizations and the implicit subsidies they receive. They are willing to appear on television shows – and did so earlier this summer, pushing back against Sanford I. Weill, the former chief executive of Citigroup, after he said big banks should be broken up.
  –
  Typically, however, since the financial crisis of 2008 the heavyweights of the banking industry have stayed relatively silent on the key issue of whether there should be a hard cap on bank size. This pattern has shifted in recent weeks, with moves on at least three fronts.
  –
  William B. Harrison Jr., the former chairman of JPMorgan Chase, was the first to stick out his neck, with an Op-Ed published in The New York Times. The Financial Services Roundtable has circulated two related e-mails “Myth: Some U.S. banks are too big” and “Myth: Breaking up banks is the only way to deal with ‘Too Big To Fail’” (these links are to versions on the Web site of Partnership for a Secure Financial Future, a group that also includes the Consumer Bankers Association, the Mortgage Bankers Association and the Financial Services Institute). Now Wayne Abernathy, executive vice president of the American Bankers Association, is weighing in – with a commentary on the American Banker Web site.
  –
  These views notwithstanding, mainstream Republican opinion is starting to shift against the megabanks, as former Treasury secretary Nicholas Brady makes clear in a strong opinion piece published in The Financial Times. Mr. Brady was Treasury secretary under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever accused him of being any kind of leftist.
  –
  Yet Mr. Brady’s thinking in his Financial Times commentary is strikingly similar to the reasoning that motivated the Brown-Kaufman amendment (supported by 30 Democrats and three Republicans) in 2010, which would have put a hard cap on the size and leverage of our largest banks, i.e., how much an individual institution could borrow relative to the size of the economy. (See this analysis by Jeff Connaughton, who was chief of staff to Senator Ted Kaufman; Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, is still pushing hard on this same approach.)
  –
  Mr. Brady also stresses that we should make our regulations simpler, not more complex. Senator Kaufman made the same point repeatedly – and capping leverage per bank (Mr. Brady’s preferred approach) would be one way to do this.
  ….
  In 1995, the largest six banks in the United States had combined assets of around 15 percent of gross domestic product; they are now over 60 percent of G.D.P., bigger than they were before the crisis of 2008.
  –
  read more!

end