Navigate to the next (or previous) story by clicking the small red arrows above.
---
Video Excerpt: Dylan Ratigan on Morning Joe yesterday -- June 25, 2010
Two videos -- an excerpt (hand-built) that runs less than 2 minutes, plus the complete clip. And the transcript. Awesome performance.
- "The conflict of interest is intact, the leverage is still there, and too big to fail still exists. It won’t stop the bonuses, and it won’t create jobs."
- "The banks own both parties, let's make that clear. Republicans are owned by the banks -- offered no counterproposal. The Democrats didn't fix the problem -- owned by the banks. That's why 40% of all corporate, all lobbying money comes from the banks, and they give it to both sides. They're not stupid."
Ratigan knows the score -- both parties are essentially the same -- and both are owned by the banks and other corporate interests.
There's much more to like in the transcript and complete video below.
---
Video: Complete clip...looks the same as the above...but runs 10 minutes.
---
Automatic transcript generated by MSNBC, so it contains errors.
>> is this historic, dylan? what's the deal?
>> instead giving my opinion, briefly, form your own opinion. there's, there's a reason this happened. you have massive banks with a lot of leverage that were hiding their risk. that's why this happened. underneath that a conflict of interests between those like donny, say, and donny and i are work together. i'm a bank. donny's the rating agency. what does my fico score? show me 650, ratigan, you're good to go. i get a aaa. leverage, hiding risks, too big to fail. were any addressed in this legislation? no disagree with as a story. they thing that a lot of stuff. also they change a lot of stuff with the health care legislation, but didn't necessarily resolve the underlying problem with health care. i want you to think of this --
>> posing the so-called vocal rule?
>> listen, that's an interesting concept doing absolutelying in to prevent further extraction of wall street. the purpose, invest money in the developments of the economies of america and the world. the lending sbis a utility in the modern universe and they made the lending business into a multi-trillion dollar compensative business because you are able to gamble wildly with other people's money.
>> at least it's a step in the direction --
>> sure. i can point to lots of lists of things that will make you feel a little better about everything, but the conflict of interest in intact. leverage still there. too big to fail still exists.
>> too big to fail -- trumps everything.
>> one last thing. as if they watched the oil spill in the gulf for two years, let oil go all over the gulf as a result of a corrupt system, which is what our financial system is. it's a system designed to extract money, and two years after the fact, passed a law to change a bunch of things and did absolutely nothing to fix the problem. i don't think it will stop the bonuses created through extraction and i'm sure not create jobs, which is what wall street is supposed to do, invest money in the development of business our country that creates jobs. absence of jobs, absence financial stability and absence the end of the extraction i ask you what have the democrats accomplished?
>> dylan ratigan is not swept up in this historic moment. are you?
>> well, i'm not sure whether i'm swept up in it or not but i'd like to take dylan up on his offer. relentless critic of his bill throughout its process. i'd like, dylan, you said you could point to some things we could take heart in. name two things in this bill you actually like.
>> two things in this bill i actually like, i think nora right. the rule and discussion about the volcker rule to diminish the ability for banks to willy-nilly spread risk, a diminishment in that. that's good, to donny's point, but won't protect. in other words, as it attack as a taxpayer, how i look tat in the context of my job, as taxpayer i ask myself, will this legislation protect me from all of those risks, and it won't, and that's why you get sort of the commentary. to answer your question, the volcker rule is encouraging an the consumer protections are very encouraging. those are the two things i would point to that deserve the most applause, but the actual structural aspects where the financial industry has two choices. either be incentivized to make money investing in america. if they do that well, they are rewarded through their own wealth, or they can extract from america by effectively creating all sorts of businesses whether short-term trading businesses or speculation credit risk businesses for which they can't actually bear the risks.
>> you're punching a hole in the capital market system.
>> i am not.
>> can i respond? can i no longer pay my taxes? if the plan is to pay for a government -- let me finish -- if my plan, pay for a government who's supposed to be a referee on a game in which risk is expected to reside with the individual and the opportunity to achieve and wake up early and stay late and create value for nora and willie and bill and down the line, i can go out into the world, it's there. that solves a lot of problems, but if i go to the government as a unique individual. say a monopoly. you know this as well as anybody. all the businesses on the monopoly board. is the banker on the monopoly board? can i be the banker? you cannot. because banking is a utility. why is banking a utility? banking is a utility because banking is designed to facilitate --
>> other businesses. what i'm saying, yeah, goldman sachs obligation, make as much money as possible. if the only way they know how to make money by altering the rules of capitalism so they no longer have 0 deploy capital instead can simply use access to capital as a speculative device to generate trading revenue for themselves without delivering any value to the country, why would the government allow a lawmaking -- a set of laws that effectively reverse the flow of capital?
>> whatever the laws are, greed will find out --
>> a valid point. this has been going on forever. personal responsibility for financial professionals, alaa salomon brothers. if it's a partnership our look at the person that articulated this best, jim grant in "the washington post," an op-ed, six weeks ago, i recommend you google, do jim grant and wall street i'm sure it will pop up. if you look at countries, in the past, brazil still has this law. other places around the world, were the executives. say the four of us run a bank. right? and the four of us can only be paid based on the capital structure of that bank. not just the equity structure of the bank. the debt of that bank, everything in that bank, and now if i see crazy donny out there doing a big deal, taking on a bunk of risk i go in the room with nora and willie, crazy donny's going to blow out of money on a swapski.
>> specifically, should not be allowed to go to the shareholder and the bondholder for capital and transfer the risk, because the combination of going to the shareholder and the bondholder with being too big to fail i need both of those things in order to pull this off. if i'm too big to fail, can my risk in the share and bondholder, they're like an electric cable that goes straight to the capitol building and we take all the money.
>> that's exactly what's happened here. i understand they may be very proud of themselves but the fundamental structure, if i run a bank right now, i am still operating at huge leverage. i'm still able to operate at huge leverage in secret and hide my risk. and i'm still in conflict of interest with the people who are supposed to be vetting my product being the ratings agencies and i don't actually know this. i know they were attempting to diminish shareholder rights that would go directly to our opportunity as shareholders to hold to account those banks. honestly, i don't know what happened to that.
>> the banks own both parties, made it clear. republicans owned by the banks, offered no counterproposal. the democrats create read form didn't fix the problem. that's why 40% of all corporate, all lobbying money comes from the banks, and they give it to both sides. they're not stupid.
>> you're on message.
>> goldman knows we're on message, and so negotiating price tag.
>> going together on "60 minutes."
>> yes.
---
Screenshot
