Posted on 07/19/2013 4:35:30 PM PDT by lbryce
Earlier this week, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) went on CNBC last Friday to debate the Glass-Steagall banking regulations that were adopted in 1933, and her proposal to update and strengthen the law in a way that would likely force the big banks to spin off some of their business and stop being so damn big.
As you can imagine, CNBC is no fan of Glass Steagall, regulating banks, or Elizabeth Warren.
During her appearance on CNBC, Warren basically kicked ass, the video went viral, with over 700,000 views in a matter of days, so CNBC pulled it.
Here’s what sits in place of the video now:
Blank Screen
And where did CNBC pull the video from? They filed a complaint with YouTube and had the video yanked from the Senator’s official YouTube account - but only after it had accumulated over 700,000 views in a matter of days.
Apparently, the buzz over Warren’s appearance got so great, that CNBC anchor Jim Cramer had to try to shoot it down on Twitter (h/t to HuffPo for that point):
There is some weird strain of thought that CNBC got beaten by Senator Warren. I like the senator but she had NO impact. Sorry..
— Jim Cramer (@jimcramer) July 17, 2013
Yeah, Elizabeth Warren had so little impact that CNBC filed a complaint against the YouTube account of a United States Senator in order to get the no-impact video pulled.
(Excerpt) Read more at americablog.com ...
She’s a “white Cherokee”.
On this issue I agree with her.
Rope please
Commercial banks focused on lending (retail and commercial...even commercial paper) and investment banks focused on, well, investment banking (i.e. raising capital in the public and private capital markets).
Occasionally an investment bank would bite the dust...but at least its investors were well aware of the risk. And the Commercial banks were much more conservative...as they should be.
That was the interview where she proved she was an idiot who had no idea how things worked.
And CNBC had it pulled because, well, CNBC is actually a network that sells their video products, and so they do not want people to give it away for free.
It’s snowing in hell: she’s right.
Me, too. But better make sure it has teeth, not watered down under the banner of “Comprehensiveness”. Devil will be in the details..
How so?
The Government does not belong in manipulation of the economy, they exist to provide and equal and just playing field for everyone, that is all.
Regulations, acts, central banks write laws to benefit those who are in political favor and give a quid pro quo, not for America and it's citizens in general.
Me too.
Might be the only thing I agree with her on, but she’s got this one right.
I just saw the clip up on that web site now. What did she say that revealed her ignorance?
CNBC = Cowardly NBC
Not so long as the American taxpayer is providing guarantees on deposits, which we are. Given that, we should limit how much those funds can be put at risk, and also we should not be guaranteeing an institution to the size that it becomes ‘too big to fail’.
Yep, exactly.
I worked for a Commercial Bank when Glass Stegall was repealed. I thought it worked ok. At least when the investment banks went down, they didn’t take the whole system with them.
My father in law was a commercial banker and he once said (I paraphrase), commercial bankers have a fiduciary responsibility to regular folks not to risk their capital. Investment banks have a different clientele and rightly so. No good can come from mixing the two.
Warren referenced the 2008 “crash” in the context of banking deregulation being a factor. The culprit in the 2008 housing market fiasco was the fact that the government tried to intervene in that market and pressure banks to make unwise loans to home buyers.. on a massive scale, creating an unsustainable “bubble” that was bound to burst.
What, pray tell, would have happened to the housing market bubble had Warren’s new Glass-Stegall bill been enacted and in place? I believe there is a place for some regulation in the banking industry, but to put all the blame on “deregulation” is simplistic and can eventually lead to more problems if we’re not very skeptical and careful of the resulting imposition of new onerous regulations proposed by the progressive left.
Well yeah, but we don't have a choice....I do see your point though.
Given that, we should limit how much those funds can be put at risk, and also we should not be guaranteeing an institution to the size that it becomes ‘too big to fail’.Yup, you nailed it...and that is my point....we don't have the choice.
Even a broken clock can be right once a day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
