of c-span products, apparel, books, home to corand accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps to support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime c-span shop.org. >> joining us now from newto massachusetts james jacoby, pbs frontle director, producer of their latest documentary. taking a look at the federal reserve. thks for jning us this morning. what getyou interested in what you will focus on a documentary and why the federal reserve? guest: it is weird timing. i have working on this film -- i have been working on this film for about two years. this is a follow-up to it. for it to be coming out today is bizarre, considering what has happened in the past two days. the fed having to come to the rescue once again of financial players that took on risk. like the bank at silicon valley. this is exactly what got us interested in the fed in the first place. probably the most powerful institution in some ways in the country. yet the least understood. it seemed worthwhile to look into it for a while. host: the title is inresting. age of easing moy. -- age of easy money. guest: since the financial crisis of 2008, we have been living in a world of extremely low-interest rates, all these tools the fed has used to keep the cost of borrowi low in our economy for the past 14 years or so. we all know because higher inflation that has come about post-pandemic, the fed has been forced to pull back on its easy money experiment. it is causing all kinds of disruptions because our companies, governments, individuals in this country got very used to very low and cheap borrowing costs. age of eas money is a way we are looking at the past 14 years or so, decade plus through this prism of easy money and unintended consequences that came about as a result of that. host: when yo go into one of these projects do you go into with perceptions ohow the fed works d learn something new from the process? if that is the case, at did you learn? guest: it was a massive learning curve. i have done some financial reporting. but this was a big learning curve. we are talking about some pretty opaque stuff still -- opaque stuff. when the federal reserve really creates money to put into the banking system by buying bonds from the bk, it is somhing i had it to delve into learning about an speak to a t of experts about. we hopefully explain it well in the film. the good, the bad anthe ugly of it. host: if you want to ask him questions about the film, it airs tonight at 9:00 eastern on pbs. ndiscernible] (202) 8-8000, democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. [video clip] >> this is the epicenter of the highest inflation. >> no city had it worse than phoenix, which had the highest inflation rate in the nation. when i visited st. mary's food bank, the cars wereined up first thing in the morning. >> every day we get -- come through. yesterday it was 1000. that is five days a week. they just don't have any other choice. we are hearing the budget is being eaten up by all the impacts of inflation. it is either that or they don't have food for their chdren. >> i am single m so sometimes at the end of the month i need the assistance because life has gotten a lot more expensive and being a single parent, i can feel it. it is like choosing between your rentnd your food. >> it takes 100 bucks just to get cereal, milk, and exit. -- and eggs. >> when did you start seeing an increase in people coming? >> the end of february this year, 2022. we saw a slight uptick, but it click -- but it kept climbing. it climbed all through summer. we thought that was a plateau at the end of summer it continues to climb. at the end of summer, we have 1000 households come through. we have seen a 26% increase year-over-year in the number of people coming to us from help. from 2021 to 22? >> yes. and of that 18% are first-time people coming to the food bank. host: phoenix is e destination. how did you end up there question mark what droveou to that? guest: at the time i was there inflation was the highest in the country in phoenix. that was for a lot of reasons at saw a huge influx. especially for people that came to le in calirnia. a lot of supply, a lot of demand. we really waed to go there at the time. you could see how palpable inflation was. it has been all across the country. we chose phoenix as the place to go. inflation since we were there has come down. but it is still well ave 6%. thinkhe numbers were today. which is wl above the 2% target the fed wants it is still a ve real problem. and a very big delimiter -- veryig dilemma for the fed to thicn -- to continue to get it down. host: jay powell, the fear -- the chair of the fed has said he has to reduce quantitative easing. how does he accomplish that? what do you think he faces trying to accomplish that? guest: we are seeing what faces him. this irelated to the bank failures we have seen in the past few days in that higher interest rates go, the lower the value of area financial assets like bonds. we are only starting to see i think the fed is in a very difficult position right now. whether they should use or see whether there is economic fragility's, financial fragility's in part causing or whether they have to keep going hier for longer in order to get inflation numbers down. host: did you have to talk to any -- talk to cheer powell? guest: there are 12 regional banks across the country. a part othe federal reserve system. one sitting president did to because. he was a big part of this film telling us what they are grappling with. host: remind us who he is, what role he played and what kind of information did he give you. gut: she is with the federal reserve bank. voting members sometimes vote on policy but they are all very actively involved in policy and setting interest rates and emergency measures and things of this nure. president khkari, to his credit, very willingo sit down with me to awer questns to sit for an hour, hour and a half interviews to answer questions that i think the public has about what the fed has been doing. host: would you say he agrees with chair powell'secision about interest rates and also pulling back on intere rates -- pulling back the balance sheet? guest: for a long time he was basicay saying he was all in favor of easy money policies. in order to try to stimulate economic roads. e to basically keep inflation under control and two to y to create employment in this country. . kashkari has always been in favor of trying to get full employment when inflatio started to creep up, hthought itas transitory. to say it was basically temporary. supply chain problems by the pandem and other problems they hoped would just go away. along with the federal government tryinto stimulate growth and demand and make up for shortfalls of the pandemic it proved not just to be trantory inflation but much higher for longer. he basically turned from a dove to a hawk now. he is saying we need to keep up the rate hike in order to ke inflation down. inflation is indeed so painful for everyone. yet the bind right now is whether they can continue to raise rates to get inflation under control given the fact there seems to be concerns about financial stability and economic stability. host james jacoby, frontline producer and pbs. first up for our guestjohn in ohio. go ahead. caller: a bunch of bankers run the show. i am 87 years old. i used to be in banking. it affects low income people more than anybody. over the years no tax cut has pay for itself in the history of human beings. and third, the way they are going about it, they are burning the candle on both inns. capilism has not been practiced. host: a lot out there for the guest. we will let him respond. guest: one thing important to respond, it is an independent entity, the federal reserve. the call was right that the stakolders in the fed. the fed is ultimately accountable to congress. there is one thing that is important to know. independence of monetary authority, we don't necessarily know -- we don't necessarily want our metary supply in the hands of congress. the fed was designed to have long financial stability. the caller also brought up. frank and the fact that no one did go to jail after the financial crisis. the financial crisis in its aftermath cannot be overstated how important that was both in this country's economicnd political history. and it gave rise to a lot of understandab anger on the right and the left about how the system work. so i have to agree with the caller on that front. but it is going to be interesting to see if there is more disruption in the banking system now. how people feel about that. already there is concerns about moral hazard. uninsured depositors getting made whole. these banks that may have managed themselves poorly are going to get in some ways the bailout. and what igoing to happen. many good poin. host: grant is in michigan, democrats line. caller: hello, good morning. let me put in a plug for frontline. i love frontline. i am old enough to remember paul volker and h fight against inflation. and i want to echo the previous caller in my disgust that nody went to jail after lehman brothers collapsed in 2000 eight. but to move on to the present day, correct me if i'm wrong but in august of 2020 in jackson hole, wyoming, jerome powell said, came out with a pivoted and said inflation is too low and we need higher inflation and in order to achieve that, he started buying $120 billion a month, or a week in bonds in order to cause inflation. anwhenev we hear everybody pounng the table about inflation, we never hear that actually jerome powell said he was going to cause inflation, and did. i don't understand whye is chrman of the federal reserve. he is a lawyer, he is not an economist. host: thank you, caller. guest: i would be happy to talk about that. it is a really important point. we did live in a world before the pandemic on some measures, i will explain that clarification, of low inflation. around the world we have basically been seeing low inflation. too low inflation. they think low inflation is a good thing because it speaks to economic growth and demand. so what happens is that inflation around the 2008 crisis and up through 2020 or so was very low and there was a school of thought and the feder reserve wanted to raise inflation but not ise it too much but raise ito 2% target, which they figuris a good indicator. it is not too painful, 2% target isk. can all handle that. it is notoo regssive. so there was an attempt well before jerome powell ttry to raise inflation a little bit in this country because it would be a sign of economic demand and growth. hower, and the caller is right, the said did almost make that, codify that ashe thing it was going to do, no matter what. so they kept the pedal to the metal. $120 billion a month or so in bond buying. they did it at the time that supply chains and other things from the pandemic were all gunnedp. you got this combination oall this monetary stimulus, all these supply issues. they created inflation, but it went too far. and that is what we are dealing with today. host:ick joins us from nebrka, republican line. you aron with james jacoby of pbs, frontne. caller: i think it is going to be a domineffect of l thes banks. we cnot continue to keep paying all these, bailing these banks out. onseason they are getting bailed out. they are all going to start it. host: to that end, because this story broke so late a has the federal reserve involved i it, did you he a chance to accommodate that into the documentary we are going to see tonight? gues we did. i interviewed sheila barely -- sheila bailey, the former head of the fbi see. -- the fdci. it is really relevant. i don't know what is going to happen. what the fed has done, open this kind of emergency facility for banks struggling with similar issue to silicon valley bank, basically that should, those are pretty extraordinary measures. sheila bair, she wasn't raising alarms. i want to make that clear. what she said to me is that essentially the regulators and the authorities need to be very clear about what we are dealing with. they need to be very clear these emergency facilities on the planet, we can all assess what the hazard is of helping these banks that got in trouble and whathould be done about the people that run them and other things like that. it is too early to tell what the fallout will be. i gleaned from sheila bair yesterday who knowshis stuff very well, for now, there are facilities in place. there is a gameplay in place. there were some lessons learned om 2008. host: this is james jacoby of pbs frontline. 9:00 tonig is when that documentary airs. where can peop find it? guest: find it on youtube. or at pbs.org/frontline or the pbs app. it streams there. we put them out for free on youtube. host: live from alabama, this is dixie. caller: i want to encourage all c-span work -- all c-span watchers to watch frontline. in-depth reporting, it is magnificent. i want to say thank you for producing it. about the svb bankruptcy, to me it is upsetting that they considered systemic risk and went ahead and ensured all deposits over 250,000. so are we tohink that the fdic is going toncrease the insurance for everybody? host: thank you, ma'am. guest: first of all thank you foyour appreciation of frontline. we don't know the answer to tt question. i certaiy don't kn it. what i do know a little bit more about is the federal reserve lending window is going to enable banksn similar situions to svb to basicly sellheir distressed assets to the fed, or not sell them, it is a leing program. a lot remains unclear about this. i wish i had better answers for you. it is unclear whether they are going to go above $250,000 as the objective. host: one of the things you talk about in your documentary is the topic of interest rates. we will show folks short clip regarding that and then we are going to talk about it. [video clip] >> higher interest rates, softer labor market conditions will bring down inflation. they will also bring some pain at to households and businesses. >> how do you explain to someone seeing their gas bills go up, food bills go up, groceries, their rent go up, how is it that higher interest rates and what you're doing with this very blunt instrument, how are you saying that is going to help them with those issues in particular? >> one of the reasons prices are high is because there's too much demand in the industry. by raising rates we are going to slow down the demand for housing. people going out buying up homes, which will prevent home prices and rents from continuing to climb. that should benefit workers. things like gas prices is not being driven by us. that is being driven by the war, saudi arabia, ukraine. some pieces of this we can directly affect. some pieces of this are out of our control. >> some people have said interest rates are almost like a sledgehammer. it is not like a scalpel. can these problems be solved with a scalpel or you really do believe you need to bring the hammer down to some extent? >> i would love to be able to bring it with a scalpel. a year ago i argued that i thought many of these factors were transitory. meaning you have got these one time events, they are going to pass and inflation will come down. so let's not bring down the hammer. that was my view. that did not happen. so now we ve to bring the hammer. if we don't bring the hammer, this thing can get out of control. host: one of the criticisms of the federal reserve, taking a look at inflation, they reacted too late. anything relate to thatopic? gues i asked h all about that. he did admit had we known what we knew now, they would have acted sooner. but the caveat was he didn't thinthat would have made that big of a differee. i think plenty of people would disagree with that but that was s assessment of it. that exchange that you just heard really does speak to a very serious dilemma for the fed. which is raising ierest rates is a very blunt interest -- blunt instrument. it has ripple effects. it has a lag effect. we do not know those ripple effects for a very long time. but it is disruptive. especially when you go so quickly in su a short amount of time. i was asking him what essentially is an argument on the right and the left, to some extent. is raising interest rates actually going to affect the price of food, the price of gas and it sorts of things that really affect us all? e answer to that is kind of know. what inflationill do is bring down demand in the economy and that may then have an effect on the price of food, the price of gas. it certainly could. but it affects everything opposed to a scalpel that maybe you could address food prices or gas prices in another way. i am not advocating for that at all. i am just saying, that is what the fed said is the use of these tools. st: from new jersey democrat line, this is mike. caller: good morning. pedro, thank you so much. you do a great job every day. you have jacoby on doing and excellent job on economic issues. the conservative economists seem to think lowering taxes and putting money back in people's pockets both corporations and people add to spending and the economy. that at the same time the fed seems to preach when unemployment becomes low there is more money in the economy because re people are working and the rate of pay goes up, meaning more money in th economy, and that adds to inflation. ich one of them are right, are neither of them right or are they both wrong? i always question why it is good to lower taxes on the other site to put more money in the economy, the fed looks to get more money out of the economy. like the guy just said you were interviewing earlier, so less people can buy houses and things like that. guest: there is a lot to unpack there. they are related of course, but they are a little bit apples and oranges. tax cut is one thing, the efficacy, they do create economic demand. i am no pert in that subject in terms of what the eects of tax cuts are. it is kind of separe fromhat the fed is dng. i want to stress that. tax cuts on the fiscal side and what the federal government does, federal reserve, monetary policy, interest rates for instance. to your question about that end of things, the thing to undersnd their, what is odd about right now, the fed has been working so hard funneling trillions of dollars into the system to try to get unemployment down since the pandemic. it w doing the same thing after the great financial crisis when unemployment was at 10% or so. amazing measures to try to get unemployment down. unemployment is now, hovering around hisric lows. what is odd about that is inflation is high athe same time. so for the fed, th are in this binder. even though theigoal was to get unemployme down, which it is, now inflation is up. they kind ofave to choose which part ty wanto emphasize. right now their emphasiss on getting inflation down which does mean it would challenge -- which mes they would have t raise rates, slow down unemployment. unemployment would have to come up in order get inflation down. host: when it comes to the easy money poly, who benefited more, individuals or big and small companies? guest: it is hard to say in relative terms. the biggest beneficiaries by far , let me restate that. theffect on individuals and main street is difficult to tell what the effect was. we know zero interest rates and cheaper borrowing costs helps people by houses with mortgages, lower rates. however, as we all know, prices went through the roof. a lot of people who want to afford a house, prices went way up. there became an affordability crisis. forgetting the question at this point. host: the winners and losers. guest: the winners have undoubtably been people that own the vast majority of the financial assets. stocks, bonds, bonds. in the course of this age o easy money, the ch have benefited. the people that ve the most stocks, you may be invested in a 401(k) plan or pension plan that most of the stoc contributors are owned what -- owned by the very top. we have seen a huge asset price in this country. e biggest beficiaries in this country have been the rich. some of the biggest beneficiaries have be priva equity companies, in silicon vall, able to borrow money from banks and extremely low rates and build up huge debt. and by up huge swaths of the economy in private equity. and when it comes to silicon lley, we saw this huge boom in silicon valley in part because all this money without their looking for somewhere to make money -- all this mey was out there looking for somewhere to make money. host: in california, republican line, you're are on with jacoby. caller: i just found out yesterday, mr. jacoby, the company u.s. money reserve making ants on tv, invest your money into gold, your 401(k). the commercial came on with guy bannon and he said text here and put your money and be safer beuse you know what is happening with the economy. i was toldy the person i was talking to on the phone to invest my money in here because well fargo, the one that got based out because they threw a lot of people out of their homes . they were not even told about it. i was one of them, so i went to a different bank. they bought 40 billion in gold. wells fargo did. how could they get away with something like that? i shouldn't be telling you this because the guy said, don't mention this. why can't you get in if they can get in with the money they stole from people? host: what would you like outward guest to address specifically? caller: in layman's terms, sometimes speak to the people who don't know what is all going on. this is albeing made up. guest: i am not sure i am qualified to answer what she is bringing up. i am going to pass on that one. host: let's hear from april in illinois, the independent line. caller: hi, good morning. thank you for listening to me. i am concerned. it is very large bank, a lot of investmts. we don't know how much -- we all know how much insurance we carry when we buy our car. i know you can only put 250 and that is all the fdic insurers. i am confused y we have to come in and the fed reimburses people with funds when they took the risk. the united states is in a mess rit now. we are ging money to ukraine, weapons to them. so i don' understand. we are responsible to repay these people for a mistake they made. guest: you raise a great point. i think we all want an answer to that question. from the pnt of vi froour financial regulators in the federa reserve, it is the same logic we heard in the 2008 crisis when we bailed out the big banks taki on too much risk. moralazard, you basically bailout risktakers. and to be more precise though, it is important we are in this kind of conversation. what they are trying to do is stem a panic. they don't want a panic in the larger system. there are going to be supposedly more accountability measures put in place when it comes to this particular circumstance with silicon valley bank and a signature bank. the devil is a little bit in the details with this. when it comes to the larger issuthe caller raised, the idea that risktakers don't have to suffer the consequences of taking those risks, that is a big issue still in this country. the administration, the federal reserve really needs to get in explanation. i think prident biden yesterday in his message was trying to say the are going to be some accountability mechanisms here. what we need to know more about it. host: in the age -- if the age of easy money is endg, what does that mean for everybody involved and who suffers most? guest: it is hard to tell. i hate to keep answering questions like that, but that is just the nature of the beast. when interest rates go up, especially rapidly like they have, it is hard to tell what the consequences will be because there are a lag effects. things like financial stability like we are seeing in the banking system, is that indicative of greater stress that is left to come with these rapid interest rate hikes? we don't know. we certainly hope our institutions are thinkg about that and preparing to deal with that. as for individuals and for small businesses, of course it affects everything. it affects the rate of borrowing, it affects the housing market, it affects home prices. it is intend to. it is intended to slow down the economy at a time when ilation is too high. host: from nevada, democrats line. we are running a little ort on time. go ahead with your question or comment, please. caller goomorning. thank you, gentlemen. i am reallcurious about 97% of this svb fun. i am from neva, california mayan -- my whole life. the student loan bailout the government for 20 llion people will help a lot of peopl the supreme court told police -- the supreme court totally poticized. but we immediately bailout billionaires. god bles you both r working hard. i wonder if u would do what you do if you couldn't afford a house, you couldn't afford a ranch d you re being rolled over, just steamrolled. thank you very much. god bles everyone. est: you are raisi a ver important question. one of the most important questions weave rit now. e as a peoe, we as a society have a l of debt, building up a lot of corporate debt, govement debt. it is always the question as to who is the priority here. as youave said, whether it is student debt or wheth it is the fact that a bank had all tys of government securities that werreally high at one pot but when the fed starts raising rates, those deposits plumt. they want to pool their money cause they are in some trouble in the bandoesn't have aay to pay it out because ty have to find a way to raise cash, if -- i wish i had an answer to that question. but is the questi we rely need to pose to our political leaders. if anything i think one of the lessons of the financial crisis our financial stor, its too big. too big to fail. even though dod-frank was passed, it is not robust enough for this kind of thing. host: you can see front line tonight at 9:00. james jacoby, director and producer of frontline at joining us for ts conversation. congratulaons and youor joining us. guest: thankou so much. host: the president leavi for california yesterday makg comments in the morning about the events of the last few days concerning svb bank and signature bank and making the call for more regulations. here is the president from yesterday. [video clip] pres. biden: all customers who had deposits in this bank can rest assured they will be protected and that they will have access to their money as of today. that includes small businesses across the cntry that bank they are and need to make payroll, pay their bills and stay open for business. no losses will be borne by the taxpayers. let me repay -- let me repeat that, no losses will be borne by the taxpayers. money will come from the fees the banks pay into the deposit insurance fund. because of the action of that, the action our regulators have already taken, every american should feel confident their deposit will be there if and when they need them. second, the management of these banks will be fired. if the bank is taken over by fdic, the people running the bank should not work there anymore. investor in the bank will not be protected. they knowingly took a risk and when the risk payoff, investors lose their money. that is how capitalism works. there are important questions how this bank not into this situation in the first place. we must get the full account of what happened and why those responsible can be held responsible. my administration, no one is ove the law. we must reduce the risk of this happening again. during the obama, biden administration we put in place tough requirements on banks like silicon valley bank and signature bank. including the dod-frank law to make sure the crisis we saw in 2008 would not happen again. unfortunately, the last administration rolled back some of these requirements. i am going to ask congress and the banking regulators to strengthen the rules for banks to make it less likely this kind of bank failure would happen again. and to protect american jobs and small business. host: the presint from yesterday. the idea of more regulation for bring -- for bank protections like the presidentas calling for, what do you think? if those regulations are needed (202) 748-8000 (202) 748-8000? (202) 748-8000, for democrats. (202) 748-8001, for republicans. (202) 748-8002,ndependents. and you can text us. (202) 748-8003. katie lines for bloomberg is joining us this rning. the reaction from the president, did he accomplish it? guest: the president have been trying to project a calm. you could argue judging by market action yesterday the pain we were seeing in the share prices of regional bank, perhaps that wasn't necessarily accomplish. the other message he was trying to convey was that this was not a bailou the taxpayers were not going to be on the hook from this, it is coming from insurance fund they pay into, therefore taxpayers don't bear any responsibility. the jury may still be out on that one. we are going to have to judge market reaction when trading reopens this morning to see if there is any kind of reaction in banking shares. administration regulatory the federal reserve has taken over the past few days to stop the bleeding for now. host: you heard the president talking about this idea going before congress. what is this avenue pursue? guest: this 2018 rollback. the protection act was signed in 2018 did have bipartisan support. democrats signed on with republicans in that regard. that saw the most rigid requirements of dod-frank to raise the threshold for banks in number of thresholds for stringent regulatory issues from $50 billion up to $250 billion. silicon valley bank and signature bank both have assets listen to hundred 50. it raises the question whether they want to revisit that issue. whenou have split congress with republicans controlling t house, that may be difficult to accomplish. a lot of require lukens the last 24 hours of acknowledge what happened with silicon valley bank, they don't think stricr regulations. host: for it -- for historical congress -- for historical context, take us back to 2018. what happened between those years and how it possibly could have led us to what we ard over the past few days? guest: the jobs tax credit was a mammoth. it took a long time to get it passed. even when there was a greek -- wh there was an agreement. the stress test, more stringent on the larger ones. wh happened in 2018 was that small and midsize banks went to congress. thousands of hours level of supervision manpower we shoun't necessarily be subject to if we are just simple lending institutions. we are not as diversified as invement banks. they were arguing they should be subject to less supervision. that is what happened with that 2018 rollback. all that said, they were still subject to revisions. -- to supervision. not the highest level of supervision. the federal reserve are conducting inquiry into how the fed was supervising and regulati these banks and we will look to see the outcome of that. we are expecting that internal review to be made public by may 1. host: many people looking at the situation pointing to the fed what it has done to interest rates and how it contributed to what we have seen over the last veral days. can you paint that into the picture? guest: the fed has aggressively raised interest rates, more than 400 basis points, nearly 500 basis points over just a year. it has been very dramatic and that does create interest rate risk for banks, especially those th have a lot of money in long-duration assets. which was e case at silicon valley bank. the value of those treasues goes down at height you -- at high interest rates. the way the accounting for these banks work is they don't have to realize the losses. what happened in silicon valley bank, heavily concentted towards venture capitalist. it is no longer as friendly. the way the banking system works, a vy steep loss. that kind of sparked a very traditional bank. long story short, that is what d it to the failure of a bank. host: looking for more regulation, has there been response for the banking community about the possibility of even more regulation than what we saw going back to 10? guest: it is going to come down to the question enforcement. considering by and large most people realize more stringent regulation will be hard to get throh. it is about looking at banks balance sheet at this point. a t of regulators current and former. the rollback chang in 2018 didn't make a difference here. the problem is a problem that has been this duration bank. run longer and one shorter. all should have been spelled out right there. to see the problem brewing before it came crashing in. host: kailey leinz is with bloomberg television. you can find her work at bloomberg.com. thanks for your time this rning. we will have you in the first hour call about this idea more regulation needed for banking. (202) 748-8000, for democrats. (202) 748-80, for republicans. (202) 748-8002, independents. if you want to text us you can do that at (202) 748-8003. starting us off, rob on democrats line. go ahead. caller: hey, good morning. pedro, you are in good form as usual. my comment is, i suppose republicans over the decade that have tried to convince us the word regulations is a dirty rd. regulations are protections for us. they are not to hold us back. the whole notion tt to regulate the banking industry, oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, that the idea there is something wrong with the regulation, republicans have tried to convince even their own people that there is something wrong with regulating. the teeth -- the deeper picture of lobbyists that are working behind the scenes to change the rules, change the regulations, to weaken them. to weaken the regulations. to hurt us. to not protecthe american people. republicans and democrats deep in theystem have to come around the whole value of regulating, not be afraid. not make it a dirty word. host: that is rob in new york. let's hear from ohio. if regulations are needed in light of stb and signature bank. doug, good morning. caller: we need regulations. ever since dumb dumb change the regulations back in 2018. they are going to destroy this country if they keep doing this stuff. host: democrats will back some of those possessions -- protections. what you think of that? caller: the great regulations we had keep the robber barons from stealing everything we had. it gives them the right they can just steal from the rest of us. that gets old. host: that is dug in ohio calling on the independent lin you can continue to call in to lk about this idea of relations. more of them neede for the banks? here he is alongside vic president biden at the signing. [video clip] >> these protections will be enforced with just one job. looking out for people, not big banks, not investment houses, looking out for people as they interact with the financial system. at is notust good for consumers. that is good fothe economy. a lot of the bad loans that fueled the debt base bubble. beyond the consumer protection, reform will also rein in. >> we are going to leave this. you can watch the rest at c-span.org. the u.s. house went together to