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.
Funny how supporters of such legislation live on the "scare factor" of headlines and apparently gloss over the criticism that such outdated rules would serve no purpose:
(from link)
‘No Difference’
“If you look at what happened, with or without Glass- Steagall, it would have made no difference,” said H. Rodgin Cohen, chairman of New York-based law firm Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, who represented one side or the other in more than a dozen transactions stemming from the financial crisis last year, including the rescues of Bear Stearns Cos., Fannie Mae, Wachovia Corp., and American International Group Inc.
Cohen and others say the law wouldn’t have saved Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., both of which were pure investment banks, from collapse. And the government would not have been able to enlist JPMorgan Chase & Co. to take on the assets of Bear Stearns or allow Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley to become bank holding companies, giving them access to the Federal Reserve’s discount window.
Rather than split up banks, regulators should provide better supervision and require tougher capital requirements, said Cohen, who was also involved on behalf of banking clients in shaping the bill that dismantled parts of Glass-Steagall.
McCain-Cantwell
What good is the bill passing if companies too big too fail will get continual bailouts... that's a bigger problem to fix... start cutting them into pieces but I highly doubt they will keep the act in its purity... they will let these companies too big to fail exist and persist...
Last edited by evilnewbie; 12-28-2009 at 08:13 PM..
Funny how supporters of such legislation live on the "scare factor" of headlines and apparently gloss over the criticism that such outdated rules would serve no purpose:
(from link)
‘No Difference’
...
Its funny how people quote what are essentially opinion pieces as if they are some how factual. Clearly, there are no well known people that support the return of Glass-Steagall and think its removal played a role in the crisis.
Since the endless line of credit from the Fed. to Fanny/Freddie has already been granted by Obama this would seem to be like shutting the barn door after the barn has already burnt down.
Funny how supporters of such legislation live on the "scare factor" of headlines ....
Ahh yeah, the President comes on TV flanked by all the genus big time wall streeters, the ones who believe they are doing "Gods Work", and says imminent financial collapse is inevitable unless the taxpayers pony up a trillion dollars or so and hands it over to them. It was the biggest handout of social welfare in the nation's history.
Scare tactics at its best. They should have let them fail instead of succumbing to said scare tactics. I agree with you on that part.
Yawn! Glass Steagall does little to address the fundamental flaw of a debt based monetary system with fractional reserve banking. The flaw being that depositors can withdraw funds which have already been committed elsewhere. This always leaves the banks vulnerable to a run. The only solution is to have a central bank which grows the money supply exponentially to provide the necessary liquidity to keep the system from imploding. This creates an inflationary risk which can only be addressed by hiking interest rates. When this happens there will always be debt delinquency.
You can pile on all the regulation you want and it won't change a thing!
Yawn! Glass Steagall does little to address the fundamental flaw of a debt based monetary system with fractional reserve banking.....
This is a different problem all together. The point of GS is to separate bank investment activity from retail banking. The former does not deserve government backed and insured money.
Yawn! Glass Steagall does little to address the fundamental flaw of a debt based monetary system with fractional reserve banking. The flaw being that depositors can withdraw funds which have already been committed elsewhere. This always leaves the banks vulnerable to a run. The only solution is to have a central bank which grows the money supply exponentially to provide the necessary liquidity to keep the system from imploding. This creates an inflationary risk which can only be addressed by hiking interest rates. When this happens there will always be debt delinquency.
You can pile on all the regulation you want and it won't change a thing!
To a point you are correct. The worlds economy IS based on a fiat monetary system that need the illusion of worth to function.
The root problem with a fiat currency base is that it floats on dreams of wealth with nothing to support it and now we're all in to deep to change it.
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.
