Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
Let me get this straight, now conspiracy theorists want closed market economies and more regulation??
No, he just wants attention.
Don't feed the troll.
Let me get this straight, now conspiracy theorists want closed market economies and more regulation??
Much of the deregulation was of safeguards in place to protect against another depression.
Simple economics that's for sure.
Its own Congress dismantled America by deregulation and trade agreements. Who the hell told them to do that? Oh yeah, follow the money.
In short, repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed commercial lenders to make loans (say, in the form of mortgages) and trade instruments derived from those loans (say, in the form of mortgage-backed securities). Commercial banks could even create new investment entities that would be responsible for buying those securities.
The expanded palette of products and operations that were available in the wake of Glass-Steagall's repeal certainly contributed to the financial crisis, as banks took risks with their customers' deposits and debts that were previously illegal. Banks had new ways to make money, and new license to get "too big to fail"; a holding company could hold and create whatever it wanted.
Reintroducing Glass-Steagall would change that.
Its own Congress dismantled America by deregulation and trade agreements. Who the hell told them to do that? Oh yeah, follow the money.
Antisemitism sure is the socialism of fools.
Here is one article that seems sensible to me:
The highlighted shows that congress is being influenced to not protect American savers.Many people who would cheer the return of Glass-Steagall also caution that it is not a magic pill. Glass-Steagall alone could not prevent the next financial crisis, say Simon Johnson and his co-author, James Kwak, in 13 Bankers. In addition to separating commercial and investment banking activities, they argue, there should be a well-defined limit on how large any financial institution is allowed to get; if they're above the limit at the time it's set, then they should be broken up and forced to reconstitute as a smaller entity.
As a starting point, Kwak and Johnson recommend that the government consider limiting a bank's holdings to no more than 4 percent of GDP. Currently, the six largest banks collectively hold assets equal to 66 percent of GDP.
A false sense of security?
But while steam is building behind a return to Glass-Steagall, the same cannot be said for legislation that would explicitly limit bank size. The Bloomberg report mentions 2010 legislation sponsored by Democratic Senators Sherrod Brown and Ted Kaufman to limit bank size that was ultimately unsuccessful. Paul Ryan and Newt Gingrich may be on board with dividing up financial institutions, but they've yet to come out in support of an outright limit on the size of any single institution.
Congress dismantled America by deregulation and trade agreements.
That's the topic of the thread. That's the conspiracy.
From 1933 (Glass–Steagall Act) until 1999 (Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act), the United States maintained a separation between investment banking and commercial banks. Other industrialized countries, including G8 countries, have historically not maintained such a separation.
.The highlighted shows that congress is being influenced to not protect American savers.
Antisemitism is the socialism of fools.
Its own Congress dismantled America by deregulation and trade agreements. Who the hell told them to do that? Oh yeah, follow the money.
Here is one article that seems sensible to me:
However, I can find many other articles that say reinstating Glass-Steagall wouldn't change a thing. Pick your poison.
if you are American, I would ask you that, as your government has been attempting to teach you, for many years now.
those pesky tewwowists / pot smokers / commies / etc / etc /
well, derail or not it has more substance than the OP has provided for his claims.
I'd probably like to agree with him but he didnt give me anything to latch on to.