You have no idea what you’re talking about.
It was the separation of investment and commercial banks, that should not have been repealed, and that was important and would have made a huge difference in 2008.
That is what everyone means when they refer to Glass-Steagall. The main point was not to have risky investment banking activity putting FDIC-insured commercial bank deposits at risk.
This is a smart position by the GOP. Dodd-Frank and invasive consumer credit bureau are drags on the free market and the economy. GS was a prudent safeguard on the same.
You have no idea what youre talking about.
--and my having no idea what I'm talking about does not change the fact that 32 sections of the original 1933 Glass-Steagall Act are still in effect and the two that got ditched didn't make any difference.
Dodd Frank needs to go.
Investment and commercial banks weren't allowed to hold MBS prior to the repeal of Glass-Steagall?
“You have no idea what youre talking about.”
expat_panama isn’t off the mark by much. I’m a fan of Glass Steagall and want to see something like it still in effect, but expat is correct when he says that not that much was repealed during Clinton. Other parts had been whittled away over time.
I think that the real problem is that financial engineering had created products including many derivatives that weren’t covered by GS and that needed to be. One of the worst abuses was with Credit Default Swaps, which are actually a form of insurance rather than a true derivative.
Any specifics about the difference it would have made?
ClearCase_guy Taleb supports Glass-Steagall and thats good enough
Georgia Girl 2 Glass-Steagall got repealed.
ckilmer repealing the provision of Glass Stegal 1999 that separated commercial and investment banks
Mase repeal of Glass-Steagall
Pelham Glass-Steagall had been whittled down
Let's all get together on what the heck we're talking about. Here are all 32 Sections of the original 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, and this is the 1999 Act that included this section:
--that removed Sections 20 and 32 or the 1933 act--
and still left in all the other 30 sections with that stuff about separation of "commercial and investment banks". Can we all agree that deleting two irrelevant sections out of 32 sections is not what we want to call a "repeal"?
Yeah, I know the left-wingnut press keeps saying that the 1999 'deregulation' caused the 2008 crash, but thats so we don't blame the real culprit for all those forced minority loans.
Amen brother! Spot on!