Posted on 07/13/2013 1:34:07 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), alarmed that big banks are getting bigger, says she has a plan to bust them apart.
To prevent another financial crisis, Warren wants to revive portions of the Banking Act of 1933, dubbed Glass-Steagall, a law passed after the Great Depression to separate commercial banking from investment banking. “Banking should be boring,” she told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Friday. …
Warren said her effort to pass a 21st century Glass-Steagall Act has the support of Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash), and Angus King (I-Maine). …
Why didn’t the separation of commercial and investment banking happen in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act? Warren was asked. The senator hinted at incrementalism: “Remember, when we adopted Dodd-Frank in 2010, there were a whole lot of moving parts. And there were people who said, ‘Look—we’re putting a lot of new restrictions in place on the financial institutions: let’s get started; let’s get these underway.’” …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
This is how you take over the private sector, one industry at a time. First you pass a morass of laws, then you "save" them by taking them over by administrative fiat.
I agree. A lot of folks here are so quick to attack anything a liberal says they don’t even stop to think whether there is any truth to it. There seldom is, but every now and then a blind squirrel finds a nut.
“Too big to fail” is too big.
As to his bona fides: Sarah Palin was quoting and praising Zingales on the basis of having read the scholarly work of which A Capitalism for the People is a popularization before the book came out. He grew up in Italy and fled in horror from its system of cronyism and is now appalled to see the same arising here. He's a professor in the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago (and remember, that's the one thing in Chicago that's plainly on our side: the business school and econ department at U. Chicago).
But likely whatever bill she introduces on the subject will look as much like the original Glass-Steagal act as Rubio's current immigration stance looks like the one he had before he was elected.
Excellently put. Laws reflect society, they don't form it.
No matter what else we think about her, she is 100% accurate on this topic. Those knee-reflexing against her probably don’t understand the issue or are too lazy to try and understand it.
she probably wants them nationalized
Bingo! I’m a little surprised it took more than 10 posts for this.
“Warren wants to revive portions of the Banking Act of 1933, dubbed Glass-Steagall, a law passed after the Great Depression to separate commercial banking from investment banking.”
I REALLY HATE it when I agree with a commie. ESPECIALLY one as reprehensible as Warren. Still. I suppose even a blind commie finds an acorn once in a while.
Agree 100%
Why?
How bout we bust up every G-damn government agency from A-Z?
How bout we start with the IRS, EPA, and DHS for starters?
They were actively engaged in giving up their federal charter and FDIC insurance when they were abruptly closed and liquidated by the FDIC for no ascertainable reason.
The patriarch fought it until he contracted a rare cancer and died last April.
These people kill people.
Yup.
I concur and would further point out the outright corruption that exists. Politicians and government executives make rulings favorable to the big boys. Many of them leave government and take big time jobs with huge bonuses with the same companies. Rinse and repeat.
The executives reap the profits and the taxpayers eat the losses. It’s the most profitable crime going and it’s perfectly legal thanks to our criminal politicians.
I bet 98% of Americans are not even aware that a large part of the housing crisis was caused by cooking the books to obtain outrageous bonuses. I bet 98% of Americans would be ticked off if they knew that no effort was ever made to prosecute those responsible or recover the criminally obtained money despite the fact that taxpayers had to bail out these companies due in part to the fraud committed by the executives. I bet 99% of Americans are not aware that many of the key players in this crime were Clinton administration politicians.
Our nation is ignorant to the injustice that allows the banksters, unions, and politicians to rob future generations.
I suspect she didn’t get the memo. The more concentrated banking assets, the easier they are to control and manipulate the masses. I predict she will be ordered by her commie overlords to stand down from this public position very quickly.
I am a banker and former regulator and I happen to agree with breaking them up. We have too many economic eggs in a small basket and the huge chunks of risk need to be trimmed down in size. But if you look at the leftist bank regulation that has come down the pike beginning with Dodd-Frank, it is decisively in favor of large banks and is having the effect of encouraging further industry consolidation, which is the precise opposite direction we should be going. Life is getting very tough for us community bankers, and we did far less to contribute to the housing bubble and liquidity crisis than did the big boys. . . IMHO
There has to be a way to do a breakup that is not according to the design of two Democratic politicians from the 1930s, I would imagine . . . ?
There was legislation in about 1996 (which I cannot recall the name of the after several glasses of wine) that governed the percentage of deposits that a banking institution could control in a particular state. I think it was set at 10%, which is probably too high. Also, before that, the Justice Department reviewed merger applications for market share in local markets. There reviews were also frequently used as a means of shakedowns by “civil rights groups” who routinely filed objections to the mergers. Frequently, in the course of mergers, the acquiring bank was required to divest of certain acquired branches during the merger.
Somehow, the top 10 banks in the US now control over 50% of deposits in this country, and it got worse with the Lehman, WAMU, SouthTrust and other failures when the 2008 liquidity crisis hit. I think 50% is too high because of diversification of risk issues, plus the potential for government collusion.
You are right. I do NOT support government directed/ ordered divestiture plans. I do favor legislation that limits pertinent market share percentages. Self-managed divestiture under the limits of the law is far preferable. But in my mind, there is a clear public benefit from limiting the size/ market share of financial institutions, not the least of which is corporatist alliances between large banks and government to the detriment of the citizens. I think that there is absolutely no question that we have that situation right now.
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.