Ben Bernanke Quotes

The impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime markets seems likely to be contained.

I don't think anybody's too big to fail. I think the - I think if what you've got is sort of a large number of institutions who are going to fail, then that ends up affecting the system.

If a bank's too big so that it can't fail without hurting our economy, well then, it's too big.

This crash is not going to have much effect on business.

The concern that you have raised is one that I frankly share. And I'm not talking about HSBC now, because that may not be appropriate. But I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy. And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.

If a financial institution has business operations in the United States, hires people in the United States, if they are clogged with illiquid assets, they have the same impact on the American people as any other institution.

An AIG failure would have been devastating to the financial system and to the economy.

If you think about it: a big bank in any country, what is it? Really, as an investment, it's a warrant on economy.

If AIG collapsed, it would have buckled our financial system and wrought economic havoc on the lives of millions of our citizens.

Bailouts may have been more tolerable in the early 1990s when they were rare and their use for a failing bank was uncertain. That is no longer the case.

The multiple failings of our flawed financial sector are jeopardizing, not only the retirement security of our nation's savers but the economy in which our entire society participates.

We as central bankers need not be concerned if a collapsing financial asset bubble does not threaten to impair the real economy, its production, jobs and price stability.

I believe strongly that we need a finance industry that is good for the economy, and I don't think anybody would argue that during the eight years leading up to the Great Recession, a lot of bets were made [and] risks taken that weren't good for the economy.

I don't think that [normalization] necessarily is going to damage the emerging economies.

When Hillary Clinton talks about adding more restrictions and complexity to our financial system, as she did in her economic policy speech, it shows how clueless she is about how the economy actually works.

By rescuing the financial system without reforming it, Washington has done nothing to protect us from a new crisis, and, in fact, has made another crisis more likely.

I do believe that some of these regulations made the markets more volatile, and it remains to be seen how bad that can be.

Barack Obama has fatally undermined our currency, our solvency, our financial stability, and - ultimately - our economy all to spend money that has had no economic effect!

If they are too big to fail, make them smaller.

One measure for promoting both stability and fairness across financial market segments is a small sales tax on all financial transactions.

What we see happening with this Republican strategy is a willingness to threaten the very foundation of the world's greatest economic power. That is a very risky proposition.

I put my money on Brexit. The EU Financial Stability Commissioner, Jonathan Hill from Britain, still owes me a pound.

Colorado's economy is already being threatened by unchecked climate change.

A lot of our respected financial institutions are just casinos in drag.

The Bankers' New Clothes makes a simple, powerful argument: that banks need to raise more capital. It is entirely persuasive that the extent of their leverage makes the financial system fragile, and it clearly and patiently demolishes all the counter-arguments made by the banks and their lobbyists.