Glass Steagall had absolutely nothing to do with keeping corporate money in check. It was passed in 1933 as a companion piece to establishing the FDIC.
It separated investment banking and commercial banking. It was written to protect depositor money by enduring that banks with depositor money could not engage in the inherently riskier act…
Glass Steagall had absolutely nothing to do with keeping corporate money in check. It was passed in 1933 as a companion piece to establishing the FDIC.
It separated investment banking and commercial banking. It was written to protect depositor money by enduring that banks with depositor money could not engage in the inherently riskier activities of investment banking.
Its repeal was accompanied by substantially strengthened rules by the FDIC, the Fed, and the Comptroller of the Currency to limit the commingling of depositor money and investment banking activities.
But feel free to keep trying. Last time I read one of your comments, you blamed its repeal (and Clinton)—wrongly—for the real estate crisis.
So I guess the multiple marriages of investment banking and commercial banking had nothing to do with the wild speculation in derivatives (etc.) that led to the economic crash of the late Bush II administration? Asking for several friends . . .
As I have replied to you before, there was nothing in Glass Steagall that would have prevented banks from bundling shitty sub-prime mortgages and selling them as securities. Nor prevented investment brokers and investment bankers from buying them. Nor prevented insurance companies that went far beyond their capital adequacy from insuring them. Nor for corrupt rating agencies from assigning spuriously good investment grades as a way to curry favor with investment bankers.
This is a complicated subject and someone who doesn’t understand would not bother me. Except you sort of pretend you do, and get a snotty attitude when you’re challenged.
Thanks for your explanation. I go for the simple idea that there will always be people who are looking for holes, ways to make money, regardless of it being at the expense of others. There are not enough laws, and will never be, to cover the cleverness cum corruption/ill will of people who are so disposed. We have great example of that in the White House.
Thank you for this response. For those of us still learning our history...Clinton became President when I was in college. He was my first Presidential vote! While I was thrilled about that, I admit I didn't pay as much attention to some of his policies in real time.
Glass Steagall had absolutely nothing to do with keeping corporate money in check. It was passed in 1933 as a companion piece to establishing the FDIC.
It separated investment banking and commercial banking. It was written to protect depositor money by enduring that banks with depositor money could not engage in the inherently riskier activities of investment banking.
Its repeal was accompanied by substantially strengthened rules by the FDIC, the Fed, and the Comptroller of the Currency to limit the commingling of depositor money and investment banking activities.
But feel free to keep trying. Last time I read one of your comments, you blamed its repeal (and Clinton)—wrongly—for the real estate crisis.
So I guess the multiple marriages of investment banking and commercial banking had nothing to do with the wild speculation in derivatives (etc.) that led to the economic crash of the late Bush II administration? Asking for several friends . . .
As I have replied to you before, there was nothing in Glass Steagall that would have prevented banks from bundling shitty sub-prime mortgages and selling them as securities. Nor prevented investment brokers and investment bankers from buying them. Nor prevented insurance companies that went far beyond their capital adequacy from insuring them. Nor for corrupt rating agencies from assigning spuriously good investment grades as a way to curry favor with investment bankers.
This is a complicated subject and someone who doesn’t understand would not bother me. Except you sort of pretend you do, and get a snotty attitude when you’re challenged.
Feel free to tell your several friends.
Thanks for your explanation. I go for the simple idea that there will always be people who are looking for holes, ways to make money, regardless of it being at the expense of others. There are not enough laws, and will never be, to cover the cleverness cum corruption/ill will of people who are so disposed. We have great example of that in the White House.
Thank you for this response. For those of us still learning our history...Clinton became President when I was in college. He was my first Presidential vote! While I was thrilled about that, I admit I didn't pay as much attention to some of his policies in real time.
Just an aside.........do we still have the FDIC? Is our money safe?
Yes. For now.