Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought this was a pretty unbiased review of it.
Right at the beginning of your article.
Some Democratic candidates have blamed the 1999 scaling back of the Glass-Steagall Act for the financial collapse. That's arguably only partially true.
Nobody has ever said there were no other contributing factors. Even your own link notes that the repeal of G/S played a role. It most certainly would not have been as big of a problem if the banks hadn't been able to gamble with money that wasn't theirs.
Some posters have moved beyond drinking the Kool aid and now are main lining shrooms. We are supposed to believe that the {R}s who want to gut Dodd/Frank because it is a burden on the big banks want to repeal Glass/Steagall? Next they will pander like Hillary and tell us they are against the TPP and will use all the party power to make sure it is defeated.
Neither Republicans not Democrats will ever repeal Glass-Steagall. It is Wall Street's and D.C., Inc.'s Golden Goose.
What will bring back Glass-Steagall is the inevitable crash that will be bigger than the last. It is happening in slow motion as more and more sovereigns face bankruptcies similar to the one Iceland went through.
Funny, since they overwhelmingly (98%) voted to repeal Glass-Steagall.
It was Democrats that said it would result in banks becoming "too big to fail" and would need a bailout by the Federal Government.
But, the days of small banks and main streets are long gone. The internet has replaced them both.
Let's be honest .. or let's get properly educated. 83% of Democrats voted to repeal Glass Steagall, and Democrat President Bill Clinton signed it into law. Clinton STILL defends the action to this day, insisting that it had nothing to do with the 2008 financial meltdown.
So, it would be accurate to say that BOTH parties, and BOTH houses of Congress, in majority, supported the move.
Why? Because party affiliation isn't relevant ... most of them are bought and paid for by the very gangsters that looted the financial system with the schemes Glass Steagall was innacted to prevent.
But they love how the American Sheeple argue over who is to blame, because they get to keep pointing fingers at the other side, when it was nothing more than a bipartisan sell out.
While I support the separation of consumer banking and investment banking, I don't think that re-instating that barrier will be a panacea in terms of financial regulation.
Specifically, it's not clear that Congress has the balls to allow investment banks to fail and go bankrupt. You will still face the old argument, "Well, it will hurt the economy to let them fail, so we'd better give them billions of dollars."
Some posters have moved beyond drinking the Kool aid and now are main lining shrooms. We are supposed to believe that the {R}s who want to gut Dodd/Frank because it is a burden on the big banks want to repeal Glass/Steagall? Next they will pander like Hillary and tell us they are against the TPP and will use all the party power to make sure it is defeated.
The GOP has already made the TPP ready to be passed by accepting and passing the TPA. It will happen in the lame duck session after the election. Only way to stop it is a hold in the Senate, lets see who will stop it.
While I support the separation of consumer banking and investment banking, I don't think that re-instating that barrier will be a panacea in terms of financial regulation.
Er, then why exactly do you support the separation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Specifically, it's not clear that Congress has the balls to allow investment banks to fail and go bankrupt. You will still face the old argument, "Well, it will hurt the economy to let them fail, so we'd better give them billions of dollars."
Are you referring to Bank of America and Citibank as investment banks? Because those used to be called banks.
Er, then why exactly do you support the separation?
Because, from a political perspective, it will likely make it easier to reach the point where both investment banks and retail banks can be allowed to fail. It demarcates a line between FDIC-insured institutions and market makers.
However, like I say, it is not a panacea. It is only one step of the overall process of keeping the financial system from running wild.
Quote:
Are you referring to Bank of America and Citibank as investment banks? Because those used to be called banks.
Bank of America and Citi are historically considered commercial/retail banks. However since the GLB Act, they do have sizable investment banking operations, so there is no longer a clear distinction.
Traditional "investment banks" are/were firms like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, or Lehman Brothers.
Since 1998, there have been mergers between retail banks and investment banks, leaving the distinction between the two types muddled. But then, that's what this thread is about in the first place.
Because, from a political perspective, it will likely make it easier to reach the point where both investment banks and retail banks can be allowed to fail. It demarcates a line between FDIC-insured institutions and market makers.
However, like I say, it is not a panacea. It is only one step of the overall process of keeping the financial system from running wild.
Bank of America and Citi are historically considered commercial/retail banks. However since the GLB Act, they do have sizable investment banking operations, so there is no longer a clear distinction.
Traditional "investment banks" are/were firms like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, or Lehman Brothers.
Since 1998, there have been mergers between retail banks and investment banks, leaving the distinction between the two types muddled. But then, that's what this thread is about in the first place.
So your answer is you support a separation even if you think it won't do anything. What's that about?
Yet, when Glass-Steagall was in place, you didn't have commercial/retail banks playing the ponies in the stock market.
Why don't you just come out and say you support Clinton's (and her endorsers Sanders's and Warren's) Wall Street agenda with lack of separation?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
