2 Questions

[Mac1958]

.

Since this thread would no doubt end up becoming divided along political lines, I figured I would post it in "Politics".

Two questions:

1. Why, after all we've learned, do we still have financial institutions that are Too Big To Fail?

2. Why, after all we've learned, have we not instituted or re-instituted something like Glass Steagall?

.

 

[JoeB131]

1. Those financial institutions own our politicians.

2. Those financial institutions own our politicians.

 

[Seawytch]

Lobbyists.

 

[Mac1958]

Tough to disagree with anything so far.

 

[occupied]

1. Those financial institutions own our politicians.

2. Those financial institutions own our politicians.

Yes, the financial industry has been like that so long that many think it's how it is supposed to be, a monstrous parasite sucking money from everything and everyone only to make it evaporate every time a crash occurs.

 

[zeke]

We "allowed" those banks to get to big to fail, the government told them, showed them, they were to big to fail and now the banks understand that there is no risk in the pursuit of billions of profit that they should stay away from because.........they are to big to fail.

It is really like heads I win, tails you lose.

Beside that, it took our politicians YEARS to get rid of Glass Steagall. Why do you think that the politicians would bring that legislation back.?. Btw, do you know which party was so opposed to Glass Steagall?

 

[Seawytch]

Btw, do you know which party was so opposed to Glass Steagall?

The one about to take over the Senate and maintain control of Congress?

 

[zeke]

Btw, do you know which party was so opposed to Glass Steagall?

The one about to take over the Senate and maintain control of Congress?

Sounds about "right" to me. I just wanted to see if Mac knew.

 

[Iceweasel]

How is this a party issue?

 

[zeke]

How is this a party issue?

Really? Do some research. You might find which party proposed and passed this legislation and then you might find which party has fought against this legislation since the moment it was passed.

You do know we are run by a two party political system. And that most legislation is proposed by one or the other.

 

[Mac1958]

How is this a party issue?

It isn't but anything have to do with the economy (or pretty much everything else) is politicized.

For example, I'm surprised a Republican has not yet pointed out that Clinton signed a pretty important bill in 1999.

The Democrats can point out that the Republicans constantly push for blanket deregulation.

Both parties are to blame for this, for allowing money to control our political system so completely that our "leaders" are allowing a terribly dangerous situation to remain.

.

 

[TooTall]

We "allowed" those banks to get to big to fail, the government told them, showed them, they were to big to fail and now the banks understand that there is no risk in the pursuit of billions of profit that they should stay away from because.........they are to big to fail.

It is really like heads I win, tails you lose.

Beside that, it took our politicians YEARS to get rid of Glass Steagall. Why do you think that the politicians would bring that legislation back.?. Btw, do you know which party was so opposed to Glass Steagall?

I know which party and I also know who signed it into law and praised it at the time. There was more to deregulation than the effective repeal of Glass Steagall.

"Clinton installed Robert Rubin and Larry Summers in the Treasury, which resulted in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which officially did in Glass-Steagall and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which left the derivatives market a laissez-faire Wild West (not to mention a disastrous strong dollar policy that was a critical and underrated factor in the bubble). He also reappointed Ayn Rand-acolyte Alan Greenspan, who has as much responsibility as anyone for creating the crisis, as Fed chairman—twice Clinton would have you believe that he signed those bills because his administration was forced to by a GOP that was beholden as usual to Big Business, but then what about the deregulatory legislation he signed in 1994, before Gingrich & Co. took Congress?

The American Banking Association wrote about Riegle-Neal, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, and the Community Banking Development Act that “the 103rd will be remembered as the first Congress in recent memory to pass “clean” pro-banking legislation.” Clinton, on signing Riegle-Neal, praised McColl and the head of Chase Manhattan, and said, ” It represents another example of our intent to reinvent Government by making it less regulatory and less overreaching and by shrinking it where it ought to be shrunk and reshaping it where it ought to be reshaped.” Again, this was before the Republicans took over Congress.

In 1999, on signing Gramm-Leach-Bliley into law, Clinton said, “This is a day we can celebrate as an American day” and that ” the Glass-Steagall law is no longer appropriate for the economy in which we live” and “today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down these antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority” and “This is a very good day for the United States.” - See more at: Bill Clinton on deregulation The Republicans made me do it Columbia Journalism Review

 

[konradv]

We need a groundswell for public financing of elections, so that politicians will be "owned" by us instead of special interests. The Tea Party could be worthwhile if they took this up instead of believing the propaganda that it's just another manner of government control. I don't see how allowing more voices to be heard, instead of just the party-approved, would be a bad thing.

 

[Mac1958]

We need a groundswell for public financing of elections, so that politicians will be "owned" by us instead of special interests. The Tea Party could be worthwhile if they took this up instead of believing the propaganda that it's just another manner of government control. I don't see how allowing more voices to be heard, instead of just the party-approved, would be a bad thing.

Great point. If the Tea Party ran with something like that and on smart use of public money, instead of absolutism and shutting down half the freakin' government, they'd be taken much more seriously.

And more importantly, they'd be providing a great service.

.

 

[zeke]

We "allowed" those banks to get to big to fail, the government told them, showed them, they were to big to fail and now the banks understand that there is no risk in the pursuit of billions of profit that they should stay away from because.........they are to big to fail.

It is really like heads I win, tails you lose.

Beside that, it took our politicians YEARS to get rid of Glass Steagall. Why do you think that the politicians would bring that legislation back.?. Btw, do you know which party was so opposed to Glass Steagall?

I know which party and I also know who signed it into law and praised it at the time. There was more to deregulation than the effective repeal of Glass Steagall.

"Clinton installed Robert Rubin and Larry Summers in the Treasury, which resulted in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which officially did in Glass-Steagall and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which left the derivatives market a laissez-faire Wild West (not to mention a disastrous strong dollar policy that was a critical and underrated factor in the bubble). He also reappointed Ayn Rand-acolyte Alan Greenspan, who has as much responsibility as anyone for creating the crisis, as Fed chairman—twice Clinton would have you believe that he signed those bills because his administration was forced to by a GOP that was beholden as usual to Big Business, but then what about the deregulatory legislation he signed in 1994, before Gingrich & Co. took Congress?

The American Banking Association wrote about Riegle-Neal, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, and the Community Banking Development Act that “the 103rd will be remembered as the first Congress in recent memory to pass “clean” pro-banking legislation.” Clinton, on signing Riegle-Neal, praised McColl and the head of Chase Manhattan, and said, ” It represents another example of our intent to reinvent Government by making it less regulatory and less overreaching and by shrinking it where it ought to be shrunk and reshaping it where it ought to be reshaped.” Again, this was before the Republicans took over Congress.

In 1999, on signing Gramm-Leach-Bliley into law, Clinton said, “This is a day we can celebrate as an American day” and that ” the Glass-Steagall law is no longer appropriate for the economy in which we live” and “today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down these antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority” and “This is a very good day for the United States.” - See more at: Bill Clinton on deregulation The Republicans made me do it Columbia Journalism Review

Worst mistake of the Clinton Presidency was not vetoing Graham Leach. That brought on the following collapse. But the fact is Clinton was being hammered for his blow job. Did he not veto to go along with the Repubs thinking if they got what they wanted, they might back off his impeachment? Don't know. But possible.

Either way, those doors are closed and we still have banks that are way bigger than they were. And they were to big then. We will never let them fail. Us taxpayers will gladly suck it up and spend however many tax dollars have to be spent to bail these banks out again.

These bankers are our "nobility" and we can't let them fail. Along with the Wall street traders. We loves us some plutocrats in this country.
Europeans must think we are crazy.

 

[zeke]

We need a groundswell for public financing of elections, so that politicians will be "owned" by us instead of special interests. The Tea Party could be worthwhile if they took this up instead of believing the propaganda that it's just another manner of government control. I don't see how allowing more voices to be heard, instead of just the party-approved, would be a bad thing.

The only people that would back that idea are Democrats. And the attack machine of the Republican party would shut down that conversation so fast it would make your head swim.

Or vice versa.

What we need are a few national populists with a big voice and a good idea. Like public financing for elections.
Good luck with that.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

.

Since this thread would no doubt end up becoming divided along political lines, I figured I would post it in "Politics".

Two questions:

1. Why, after all we've learned, do we still have financial institutions that are Too Big To Fail?

2. Why, after all we've learned, have we not instituted or re-instituted something like Glass Steagall?

.

1) Because the ones that are too big to fail also write the laws governing themselves

2) Do something that makes sense? You must be new.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The public has no idea how many real dangers still exist in the system, and the blame for that lies with our elected "leaders".

.

 

[The Rabbi]

.

Since this thread would no doubt end up becoming divided along political lines, I figured I would post it in "Politics".

Two questions:

1. Why, after all we've learned, do we still have financial institutions that are Too Big To Fail?

2. Why, after all we've learned, have we not instituted or re-instituted something like Glass Steagall?

.

1BEcause government likes to control stuff. They have turned big banks into regulated utilities. They literallyhave regulators in the banks at all hours telling them what they can and cannot do. It wont stop the next bank failure btw because bankers are always smarter than regulators.
2) Because Glass Steagal did not prevent any bank failures. Citigroup has been bailed out about 3 times now from bad decisions they made. At least one of those bailouts came during the GS era.

What they need to do is deregulate the banks, and that means getting Uncle Sam out from under the obligations. That's the lynchpin here. As long as banks know Uncle will bail them out they'll risk it all. In the old days the bank directors were personally liable for deposits. Guess how conservative most banks were then.

 

[TooTall]

We "allowed" those banks to get to big to fail, the government told them, showed them, they were to big to fail and now the banks understand that there is no risk in the pursuit of billions of profit that they should stay away from because.........they are to big to fail.

It is really like heads I win, tails you lose.

Beside that, it took our politicians YEARS to get rid of Glass Steagall. Why do you think that the politicians would bring that legislation back.?. Btw, do you know which party was so opposed to Glass Steagall?

I know which party and I also know who signed it into law and praised it at the time. There was more to deregulation than the effective repeal of Glass Steagall.

"Clinton installed Robert Rubin and Larry Summers in the Treasury, which resulted in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which officially did in Glass-Steagall and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which left the derivatives market a laissez-faire Wild West (not to mention a disastrous strong dollar policy that was a critical and underrated factor in the bubble). He also reappointed Ayn Rand-acolyte Alan Greenspan, who has as much responsibility as anyone for creating the crisis, as Fed chairman—twice Clinton would have you believe that he signed those bills because his administration was forced to by a GOP that was beholden as usual to Big Business, but then what about the deregulatory legislation he signed in 1994, before Gingrich & Co. took Congress?

The American Banking Association wrote about Riegle-Neal, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, and the Community Banking Development Act that “the 103rd will be remembered as the first Congress in recent memory to pass “clean” pro-banking legislation.” Clinton, on signing Riegle-Neal, praised McColl and the head of Chase Manhattan, and said, ” It represents another example of our intent to reinvent Government by making it less regulatory and less overreaching and by shrinking it where it ought to be shrunk and reshaping it where it ought to be reshaped.” Again, this was before the Republicans took over Congress.

In 1999, on signing Gramm-Leach-Bliley into law, Clinton said, “This is a day we can celebrate as an American day” and that ” the Glass-Steagall law is no longer appropriate for the economy in which we live” and “today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down these antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority” and “This is a very good day for the United States.” - See more at: Bill Clinton on deregulation The Republicans made me do it Columbia Journalism Review

Worst mistake of the Clinton Presidency was not vetoing Graham Leach. That brought on the following collapse. But the fact is Clinton was being hammered for his blow job. Did he not veto to go along with the Repubs thinking if they got what they wanted, they might back off his impeachment? Don't know. But possible.

Either way, those doors are closed and we still have banks that are way bigger than they were. And they were to big then. We will never let them fail. Us taxpayers will gladly suck it up and spend however many tax dollars have to be spent to bail these banks out again.

These bankers are our "nobility" and we can't let them fail. Along with the Wall street traders. We loves us some plutocrats in this country.
Europeans must think we are crazy.

Does what he said make you think he was merely going along with the Republicans? Clinton was being hammered for lying under oath and to a Federal Judge.

In 1999, on signing Gramm-Leach-Bliley into law, Clinton said, “This is a day we can celebrate as an American day” and that ” the Glass-Steagall law is no longer appropriate for the economy in which we live” and “today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down these antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority” and “This is a very good day for the United States.”