Dimmies also conveniently forget that the deregulation directly responsible for too big to fail financial institutions was signed by none other than Bill Clinton.
I don't believe it. Show me.
he's referring to Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The great Bush 'deregulation' myth :: Jeff Jacoby
Granted, there has been significant recent legislation easing financial restrictions. Most often mentioned is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which, as The New York Times described it on Monday, "removed barriers between commercial and investment banks that had been instituted to reduce the risk of economic catastrophes." Some argue that the law, which allowed traditional banks and investment firms to be affiliated under one holding company, helped bring on the credit meltdown. Even if true, how was that George W. Bush's fault? The law was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1999
Hardly a strong case, by a conservative reporter in Boston. "SOME ARGUE", hmmm... just how compelling can you get... Actually, not very.
And "SOME ARGUE" this deregulation had little to nothing to do with the financial meltdown:
Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe economists Brad DeLong (of the University of California, Berkeley) and Tyler Cowen (of George Mason University in Virginia) have both argued that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act softened the impact of the crisis.[34] Atlantic Monthly columnist Megan McArdle has argued that if the act was "part of the problem, it would be the commercial banks, not the investment banks, that were in trouble" and repeal would not have helped the situation.[35] An article in National Review has made the same argument, calling liberal allegations about the Act “folk economics.”[36]
The economists cited above are more creditable than a conservative reporter in Boston, and you have still failed to show that Gramm Leach Bliley was a major factor in anything, which was your original contention on page 1, and which has now been debunked, as you have also chosen to throw Phil Gramm and the repub majority in the senate under the bus.
I don't recall Lehman Bros., which went bankrupt, acquiring any insurance nor retail brokerage business, nor Bear Stearns which failed. AIG which failed big time had not entered commercial banking nor brokerage. I don't recall Washington Mutual being in anything other than commercial banking, nor Indymac. When Merrill Lynch was failing, Treasury put Bank of America together with Merrill Lynch, that would be commercial banking with retail brokerage and investment banking, which was a formerly prohibited combination, and that was seen as a solution rather than a problem (although BofA stock has taken a hit because of the garbage on the scoundrel Merrill Lynch's books that has had to be written down, and caused BofA to fire Ken Lewis for unwisely doing the deal). (I used to do business with Merrill, but I closed my account because the dips screwed their shareholders and the taxpayers)
So, among the biggest failures, I don't see actual evidence that formerly prohibited combinations played a significant role. Maybe you can cite 10 or so instances.
Last edited: