>>>Again, Bernie gets this.
>
>But does "only" Bernie get this?

In the public discourse, yes.

Your point about the banks - and exchanges of all kinds - is a good one, but it's really a lot simpler than that.
During the past 70-odd years there have been two leaders - and only two- who knew how the many could regain control from the few- Gandhi and MLK.

Both leaders hit the few in the pocketbook by boycotting goods from the oppressors.
They, like Marx, knew that all revolutions are economic. They might have had slogans like "the rights of man" and "we shall overcome" (we shall) but the their oppressors reacted to economic, not moral pressure.

Bernie gets Ghandi and MLK.

He's a throwback, thank goodness, and he does.


>
>I've said before that the entire speculative arm of banking is parasitic, scooping money from people doing productive business, in exchange for nothing of value. The scoopers would say that they force efficiency, but if this breed of "efficiency" carves $ from one or both sides in a productive business transaction, why is this useful for the participants? This is especially true of currency where (for example) the daily NZ$ churn exceeds the annual GDP. A small tariff on currency transactions will make little difference to people actually purchasing goods or services internationally (and who already pay fees and shaved rates to the transacting banks) but will end speculative buying and selling microseconds apart to try to scoop a profit from changing rates. I can't see why the citizenry has to maintain systems capable of handling bloated currency transacting by trolls expecting a share of every cart crossing a bridge the troll did not build and does not own.