Comments on: The Glass-Steagall Myth http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:29:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: GGGGGGG http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-372562 GGGGGGG Mon, 28 Nov 2011 05:30:47 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-372562 "none of the failed institutions are commercial banks that got in trouble through risky investment banking." ....ROFL! ...bubdled derivatives and hedge funds were not risky!! LMAO! "none of the failed institutions are commercial banks that got in trouble through risky investment banking." ….ROFL! …bubdled derivatives and hedge funds were not risky!! LMAO!

]]> By: Obama 2010: Pitchforks and Arugula http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-83468 Obama 2010: Pitchforks and Arugula Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:33:20 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-83468 [...] proposals not only would not have applied to last year’s meltdown, but might have prevented commercial banks from rescuing investment banks, which would have left taxpayers with a much larger bailout bill. The best argument for [...] [...] proposals not only would not have applied to last year’s meltdown, but might have prevented commercial banks from rescuing investment banks, which would have left taxpayers with a much larger bailout bill. The best argument for [...]

]]> By: The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Obama 2010: Pitchforks and Arugula http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-83465 The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Obama 2010: Pitchforks and Arugula Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:00:15 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-83465 [...] proposals not only would not have applied to last year’s meltdown, but might have prevented commercial banks from rescuing investment banks, which would have left taxpayers with a much larger bailout bill. The best argument for [...] [...] proposals not only would not have applied to last year’s meltdown, but might have prevented commercial banks from rescuing investment banks, which would have left taxpayers with a much larger bailout bill. The best argument for [...]

]]> By: Glass-Steagall: A Red Herring for the Financial Crisis | Axis of Right http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-82891 Glass-Steagall: A Red Herring for the Financial Crisis | Axis of Right Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:51:07 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-82891 [...] the end, it was the firms who took advantage of Glass-Steagall’s repeal that helped save the economy.  Large investment/commercial conglomerates such as J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank of America were the [...] [...] the end, it was the firms who took advantage of Glass-Steagall’s repeal that helped save the economy.  Large investment/commercial conglomerates such as J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank of America were the [...]

]]> By: Morning Bell: A Financial Crisis of Government’s Making | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-80656 Morning Bell: A Financial Crisis of Government’s Making | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:37:35 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-80656 [...] to identify the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley law as the deregulation source for all our problems. But as we have detailed before, Gramm-Leach-Bliley is not to blame for the current crisis. In fact, it has actually been key in [...] [...] to identify the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley law as the deregulation source for all our problems. But as we have detailed before, Gramm-Leach-Bliley is not to blame for the current crisis. In fact, it has actually been key in [...]

]]> By: Jerome http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-11661 Jerome Wed, 24 Dec 2008 04:11:26 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-11661 1. AIG insures common people's House, Car and Health. 2. The Investments institutes managed hundreds of Billions up to Trillions $ of Saving institutes like regular commercial banks, pensions & insurances. e.g. Santander invested 2.1Billion Pounds at Madoff's Ponzi. 3. There's an essential difference between allowing commercial banks to vest in "Investments"/Casino Institutes/"Banks" _before_ a market-failure, than after the fact, which is also a troubled practice, since many risks are still unknown, while the government is the natural candidate for clearing up the mess. 1. AIG insures common people's House, Car and Health.

2. The Investments institutes managed hundreds of Billions

up to Trillions $ of Saving institutes

like regular commercial banks, pensions & insurances.

e.g. Santander invested 2.1Billion Pounds at Madoff's Ponzi.

3. There's an essential difference between allowing

commercial banks to vest in

"Investments"/Casino Institutes/"Banks"

_before_ a market-failure, than after the fact,

which is also a troubled practice,

since many risks are still unknown,

while the government is the natural candidate

for clearing up the mess.

]]> By: Rick,Florida http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-9616 Rick,Florida Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:14:10 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-9616 I agree with the David,North Carolina. instead of saying that it is best for investment banks and commercial banks to be allowed to be combined so that in the case that they fail they could merge, wouldn't it be best for commercial banks not to combine with investment banks and allow for their potential to fail increase in the first place. 1/3 of commercial banks are regulated by the federal government according to the Community investment network. I agree with the David,North Carolina. instead of saying that it is best for investment banks and commercial banks to be allowed to be combined so that in the case that they fail they could merge, wouldn’t it be best for commercial banks not to combine with investment banks and allow for their potential to fail increase in the first place. 1/3 of commercial banks are regulated by the federal government according to the Community investment network.

]]> By: David, South Carolin http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-6324 David, South Carolin Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:20:30 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-6324 Instead of supporting the de facto practices of mergers between investment banks and commercial banks...There should have been enforcement of the existing rules that were being broken since the 70s... This "crisis" would not be such a crisis if commercial banks weren't entangled in investment banking. Investment banking is higher risk than commercial banking, we can all agree. Allowing commercial banks and investment banks to operate in the same house allows the investment bankers to use "creative accounting" with people's deposits and create ridiculous bubbles like we see now. Bubbles which must inevitably fall. So yes, even though the de facto rule was that mergers between commercial and investment banks was allowed since the 70s. Passing the legislation after the fact does not excuse the practice. Ridiculous... Instead of supporting the de facto practices of mergers between investment banks and commercial banks…There should have been enforcement of the existing rules that were being broken since the 70s…

This "crisis" would not be such a crisis if commercial banks weren't entangled in investment banking. Investment banking is higher risk than commercial banking, we can all agree. Allowing commercial banks and investment banks to operate in the same house allows the investment bankers to use "creative accounting" with people's deposits and create ridiculous bubbles like we see now. Bubbles which must inevitably fall.

So yes, even though the de facto rule was that mergers between commercial and investment banks was allowed since the 70s. Passing the legislation after the fact does not excuse the practice. Ridiculous…

]]> By: Did Deregulation Cause the Crash? : Minor Thoughts http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-6209 Did Deregulation Cause the Crash? : Minor Thoughts Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:43:36 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-6209 [...] law had been steadily weakened before being [...] [...] law had been steadily weakened before being [...]

]]> By: Jim McGrath, Califor http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-6194 Jim McGrath, Califor Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:54:41 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/#comment-6194 It is pretty interesting to see how people carefully filter information to fit their biases. Yes, Glass-Steagall had already been weakened--under Reagan, and under the recommendation of Alan Greenspan. Yes, the Clinton administration supported the repeal. Yes, Gramm essentially wrote the bill, and sub-prime mortgages went from a $50 billion a year business to a $700 billion. Always follow the money. (Another favorite right wing ploy is to blame the entire crisis on loans to lower income folks. That was one of the tactics used to collect enough Democratic votes to make the bill veto-proof, and may have been a risky venture. But the size of the venture, under $20 billion, is dwarfed by the magnitude of sub-prime mortages, and the deregulatory language that allowed those mortages to be packaged as securities. Only Phil Gramm can be blamed for that.) It is pretty interesting to see how people carefully filter information to fit their biases. Yes, Glass-Steagall had already been weakened–under Reagan, and under the recommendation of Alan Greenspan. Yes, the Clinton administration supported the repeal. Yes, Gramm essentially wrote the bill, and sub-prime mortgages went from a $50 billion a year business to a $700 billion. Always follow the money. (Another favorite right wing ploy is to blame the entire crisis on loans to lower income folks. That was one of the tactics used to collect enough Democratic votes to make the bill veto-proof, and may have been a risky venture. But the size of the venture, under $20 billion, is dwarfed by the magnitude of sub-prime mortages, and the deregulatory language that allowed those mortages to be packaged as securities. Only Phil Gramm can be blamed for that.)

]]>