Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
repeal of Glass Steagal happened what 15 years ago? How did a regulatory change from 15 years ago result in a crisis today? Answer: It didnt. Nor did Glass Steagal prevent previous crises, like the S&L crisis or the Latin Debt crisis.
Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the GrammLeachBliley Act.
repeal of Glass Steagal happened what 15 years ago? How did a regulatory change from 15 years ago result in a crisis today? Answer: It didnt. Nor did Glass Steagal prevent previous crises, like the S&L crisis or the Latin Debt crisis.
OK, using your kind of logic: Glass Steagal was reversed in the closing months of Clinton's presidency. 22 months later the dot com bubble collapsed.
Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the GrammLeachBliley Act.
Glass?Steagall Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Coincidence? Not according to Rabbi!
repeal of Glass Steagal happened what 15 years ago? How did a regulatory change from 15 years ago result in a crisis today? Answer: It didnt. Nor did Glass Steagal prevent previous crises, like the S&L crisis or the Latin Debt crisis.
OK, using your kind of logic: Glass Steagal was reversed in the closing months of Clinton's presidency. 22 months later the dot com bubble collapsed.
Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the GrammLeachBliley Act.
Glass?Steagall Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Coincidence? Not according to Rabbi!
No, dumbshit. My point is that Glass-Steagall's repeal did not cause any financial problems. Nor did it's presence prevent any.
OK, using your kind of logic: Glass Steagal was reversed in the closing months of Clinton's presidency. 22 months later the dot com bubble collapsed.
Glass?Steagall Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Coincidence? Not according to Rabbi!
No, dumbshit. My point is that Glass-Steagall's repeal did not cause any financial problems. Nor did it's presence prevent any.
But it did cause financial problems according to your logic. 22 months after it's repeal the dot com bubble collapsed. Whereas it's presence did fend off a truly large recession for all of 70 years if you discount the 80's recession caused by abandoning the gold standard.
It's not the banks, it's their regulator.
In Britain, they are considering making the banks separate their businesses... having 'domestic banking' as separate entities from 'investment banking'. I think that has some merit - as it will protect the customers from the excessive risk-taking that banks enjoy.
No, idiot. You still don't get it.
We had a truly large recession in 1973-74.
FAIL.
The only thing that will actually protect anything is getting gov't out of the banking business.
The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of money in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933.
-- Milton Friedman
"...One unsolved economic problem of the day is how to get rid of the Federal Reserve..."
-- Milton Friedman
Anna Schwartz and I in our Monetary History were discussing the situation after the financial collapse of the 1930s. We said then and believed then, and I still do, that the Federal Reserve had failed to do what it was originally set up to do. It had permitted a collapse of the monetary system, it had permitted perfectly sound banks to fail by the thousands because of liquidity problems, although it had been set up in 1913 with the objective of preventing that kind of a situation. And we argued in the book that since the Fed had failed and showed no sign that it was not going to continue to fail in pursuing its function, something else was needed to perform the function for which it had originally been established and that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation would serve that function. Interestingly enough, it did for some 40 years. From 1934 to the early '70s, there were very few bank failures. And there were essentially no runs on banks because of liquidity problems. So it did serve a useful function for 40 years. -- Milton Friedman
Friedman was in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve System, but believed that if the money supply was to be centrally controlled that the preferable way to do it would be with a mechanical system that would keep the quantity of money increasing at a steady rate. However, instead of government involvement at all, he supported a "real," non-government, gold standard where money is produced by the private market: "A real gold standard is thoroughly consistent with [classical] liberal principles and I, for one, am entirely in favor of measures promoting its development."
Friedman made mistakes but no one ever made money consistently by betting against him except maybe Nobel laureates Hayek and Samuelson and neither of them were that far from Friedman's position on this subject.The only thing that will actually protect anything is getting gov't out of the banking business.
so you think that step one is to kill the Federal Reserve? Milton Friedman said the exact same thing:
The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of money in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933.
-- Milton Friedman
Anna Schwartz and I in our Monetary History were discussing the situation after the financial collapse of the 1930s. We said then and believed then, and I still do, that the Federal Reserve had failed to do what it was originally set up to do. It had permitted a collapse of the monetary system, it had permitted perfectly sound banks to fail by the thousands because of liquidity problems, although it had been set up in 1913 with the objective of preventing that kind of a situation. And we argued in the book that since the Fed had failed and showed no sign that it was not going to continue to fail in pursuing its function, something else was needed to perform the function for which it had originally been established and that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation would serve that function. Interestingly enough, it did for some 40 years. From 1934 to the early '70s, there were very few bank failures. And there were essentially no runs on banks because of liquidity problems. So it did serve a useful function for 40 years. -- Milton Friedman
Friedman was in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve System, but believed that if the money supply was to be centrally controlled that the preferable way to do it would be with a mechanical system that would keep the quantity of money increasing at a steady rate. However, instead of government involvement at all, he supported a "real," non-government, gold standard where money is produced by the private market: "A real gold standard is thoroughly consistent with [classical] liberal principles and I, for one, am entirely in favor of measures promoting its development."
Friedman once quipped that the Federal Reserve should be replaced with a computer.
Friedman made mistakes but no one ever made money consistently by betting against him except maybe Nobel laureates Hayek and Samuelson and neither of them were that far from Friedman's position on this subject.
No, idiot. You still don't get it.
We had a truly large recession in 1973-74.
FAIL.
I should argue that Glass-Steagal was never intended to prevent recessions, but to prevent excessive risk taking by banks (with depositors money). I should also argue that the 73 recession was also a direct result of our abandonment of the gold standard (the Saudis stopped accepting dollars for oil, demanding gold and then cutting us off causing a massive shock to our economy).
But why bother? Facts don't phase you and you aren't capable of realizing that the relaxation of critical firewalls between commercial and investment banking that were effected in 99 (GrammLeachBliley Act, rolling back the central plank of Glass-Steagal) did indeed cause this recent recession/credit crisis/deflationary trap/debt crisis.
You were wrong, you won't admit it. Oh well.
The only thing that will actually protect anything is getting gov't out of the banking business.
so you think that step one is to kill the Federal Reserve? Milton Friedman said the exact same thing:
Glass-Steagell obviously failed because we have had banking crises ever since.
The only thing that will actually protect anything is getting gov't out of the banking business.
so you think that step one is to kill the Federal Reserve? Milton Friedman said the exact same thing:
I'm not sure how you managed to torture my post until it relented and told you what you wanted to hear.
In real life, I am suggesting that gov't guarantees of deposits encourage risky lending. That has been the main theme of every banking crisis since the Depression.
The only thing that will actually protect anything is getting gov't out of the banking business.
Glass-Steagell obviously failed because we have had banking crises ever since.
Then Glass-Steagal was a smashing success, thanks for admitting you were dead wrong.
no altering quotes.
Merely because one thing preceded another does not mean one caused the other. This is your major fallacy.
actually it is YOUR major fallacy, you posited that exact logic when you said that since GS was repealed 15 years ago it's repeal couldn't have anything to do with the current econ abyss. You posted that relying entirely on a correlation = causation logic, which is the very reason I have been challenging you ever since!
Could you possibly be more wrong and more duplicitous within one post?
Serious question, please answer it, then shrink back under your rock, humiliated into decades of silence and seclusion.
Glass-Steagell obviously failed because we have had banking crises ever since.
Then Glass-Steagal was a smashing success, thanks for admitting you were dead wrong.
no altering quotes.
Merely because one thing preceded another does not mean one caused the other. This is your major fallacy.
actually it is YOUR major fallacy, you posited that exact logic when you said that since GS was repealed 15 years ago it's repeal couldn't have anything to do with the current econ abyss. You posted that relying entirely on a correlation = causation logic, which is the very reason I have been challenging you ever since!
Could you possibly be more wrong and more duplicitous within one post?
Serious question, please answer it, then shrink back under your rock, humiliated into decades of silence and seclusion.
You're so stupid you don't know what you don't know.
I did not maintain that repeal of GS had nothing to do with the present crisis BECAUSE it happened 15 years ago. I maintain that it never had anything to do with any crisis. You would have to show some causality to make that case. You cannot. You cannot explain why it took 15 years for the repeal of GS to usher in a recession. This despite the recession of 2000, that no one says was caused by repeal of GS.
To answer your quesation, the only way I could be more wrong or more duplicitous in one post is to repost something you have written.
Oh, and I have flagged your post for violation of TOS.
And I neg repped you for good measure.
