You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

[TruthNotBS]

You conceded that the fossil fuel industry invests in poisoning people's minds about nuclear energy,

Link?

Thanks for your ten non-carbon emitting fuels.
#1 is explosive.
#2 is incredibly hazardous.
#3-7 and #9 and 10 are not non-carbon emitting.
#8 sounds too complex and inefficient for cars.

Our cars aren't clean, they're relying on fossil fuels.

Our cars are incredibly clean. Fossil fuels, when they are burned cleanly, release mostly CO2 and H2O. Clean. CO2 isn't dirty.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) encouraged banks to meet the credit needs of all communities, including low- and moderate-income areas, but it did not force banks to write bad loans

Right. It "encouraged" banks to write lower quality mortgages.

As for spending millions on lobbying, banks clearly saw the repeal as a ticket to enormous profits through increased financial speculation,

Which banks? How much did they spend?

​

Fossil fuel companies have been lobbying against Nuclear and supporting only select environmental groups against nuclear since the 50s:​

"The fossil fuel industry starting from the 1950s was engaging in campaigns against the nuclear industry which it perceived as a threat to their commercial interests.[33][34] Organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute, the Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association and Marcellus Shale Coalition were engaged in anti-nuclear lobbying in the late 2010s[35] and from 2019, large fossil fuel suppliers started advertising campaigns portraying fossil gas as a "perfect partner for renewables" (wording from Shell and Statoil advertisements).[36][37] Fossil fuel companies such as Atlantic Richfield were also donors to environmental organizations with clear anti-nuclear stances, such as Friends of the Earth.[36][38] Groups like the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council are receiving grants from other fossil fuel companies.[39][36][40] As of 2011, a strategy paper released by Greenpeace titled "Battle of Grids" proposed gradual replacement of nuclear power by fossil gas plants which would provide "flexible backup for wind and solar power".[41] However, Greenpeace has since distanced itself from" advocating for fossil gas, instead proposing grid energy storage as a solution to issues caused by intermittent renewable energy. In Germany the Energiewende, which was advertised as a shift to renewable energy but included a gradual phaseout of nuclear power from 2000 to end 2022, caused among other things a rise in fossil gas power production from 49.2 TWh in 2000 to 94.7 TWh in 2020.[42] In the same interval total electricity generation barely changed (576.6 TWh in 2000 vs 574.2 TWh in 2020) while it did rise and fall in the meantime, reaching a peak of 652.9 TWh in 2017. As much of that fossil gas was and is imported from Russia, controversial pipeline projects like Nord Stream 1 were built to satisfy increasing German gas demand. After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine it came to light that significant amounts of Russian lobbying was involved in both the continued anti-nuclear movement in Germany and the anti-fracking movement.[43][44][45]

Anti-nuclear movement - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The American Petroleum Institute (API) recently urged lawmakers in Ohio to "reject legislation that would subsidize nuclear power companies", launching an anti-nuclear campaign that marks a return to above board competition in energy markets, writes Rod Adams:

Gloves are off in fossil fuel fight against nuclear - World Nuclear News

The American Petroleum Institute (API) recently urged lawmakers in Ohio to "reject legislation that would subsidize nuclear power companies", launching an anti-nuclear campaign that marks a return to above board competition in energy markets, writes Rod Adams.

www.world-nuclear-news.org

The American Petroleum Institute, the nation's biggest and most influential lobbying group for the oil and natural gas industry, is fighting nuclear power subsidies across the U.S., poised to oppose any efforts to expand renewable electricity, and telling the Trump administration that its study on the power grid better not hurt natural gas in an effort to help coal and nuclear energy.

https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/big-oils-electric-fight-against-coal-and-nuclear-1513304200

• 
  Are Fossil Fuel Interests Bankrolling The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement? (forbes.com)
• How important has oil money been to antinuclear movement? – Atomic Insights
• The War on Nuclear — Environmental Progress
• Sierra Club — Environmental Progress
• Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) — Environmental Progress
• NRDC — Environmental Progress
• Bridging the gap: Do fast-reacting fossil technologies facilitate renewable energy diffusion? – ScienceDirect
• https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/alternatives/battleofthegrids.pdf
• The Oil Industry Is Quietly Winning Local Climate Fights
• http://climatecoalition.org/wp-cont...trys-Plan-t-o-Sink-Nuclear-Power-04-11-19.pdf
• http://climatecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/API-Presentation.pdf
• #15 – AEC authorizing legislation, fiscal year 1965 … pt.2. – Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library
• #222 – Cooperative Power Reactor Demonstration Program, 1963 : hearings … – Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library
• 

  The Fossil fuel industry's war on nuclear energy - Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak

  Introduction The true cost of not building and keeping nuclear energy is more fossil fuels, and of course, the industry knows that which is why they have done everything possible to keep nuclear power down for as long as nuclear energy has existed. Already back in 1930, the energy suppliers were...

  rpmanetworks.com

Anyone actually interested in the truth, can with a simple google search find many articles presenting the evidence for the fossil fuel industry trying to sabotage nuclear energy. The evidence is overwhelming.

As far as your gripe about what I said about carbon-free liquid fuels:

1. Hydrogen (#1): Yes, hydrogen is explosive, but it’s already used safely in various industries with proper precautions. Plus, it burns cleanly, producing only water vapor.
2. Ammonia (#2): Ammonia is hazardous, but it’s already widely used as a fertilizer. With proper handling, it can be a clean fuel alternative, producing nitrogen and water when burned.
3. Synthetic Fuels (e.g., Methanol, Synthetic Diesel, Synthetic Gasoline, Butanol): These can be carbon-neutral when produced using captured CO2 and nuclear-generated hydrogen. The key here is that they don’t add new CO2 to the atmosphere, unlike fossil fuels.
4. Liquid Hydrogen Carriers (#8): While they are complex, advancements in technology can make them efficient for certain applications, especially where hydrogen storage and transport are concerns.

It's ironic to claim hydrogen is too dangerous because it’s explosive while ignoring that gasoline (petrol) is also highly flammable and has caused countless explosions and fires. Every fuel comes with risks, but the difference lies in how we manage those risks. Hydrogen, with proper storage and handling, can be just as safe as gasoline.

Claiming that fossil fuels burned "cleanly" release only CO2 and H2O is misleading. While it's true that CO2 and water vapor are the primary byproducts, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that significantly contributes to global warming. The notion that CO2 is "clean" ignores its environmental impact. Moreover, burning fossil fuels also releases pollutants like nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter, which contribute to smog, acid rain, and respiratory issues. Fossil fuels are far from being "clean" compared to zero-emission alternatives.

The government’s encouragement through the CRA was about expanding access to credit responsibly, not about forcing banks to make bad loans. The crisis wasn't caused solely by "lower quality mortgages" but by how banks bundled these loans into complex financial products, misrepresented their risks, and sold them off globally. The real issue was the reckless behavior enabled by deregulation and the banks' pursuit of profit at the expense of financial stability.

Several major banks, including Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America, were key players in lobbying for the repeal of Glass-Steagall. In 1999 alone, the financial industry spent over $300 million on lobbying and campaign contributions to push for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Citigroup, for example, was a significant advocate for the repeal, as it directly benefited from the ability to merge commercial banking, investment banking, and insurance services under one roof, which had been prohibited by Glass-Steagall.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

​

Fossil fuel companies have been lobbying against Nuclear and supporting only select environmental groups against nuclear since the 50s:​

"The fossil fuel industry starting from the 1950s was engaging in campaigns against the nuclear industry which it perceived as a threat to their commercial interests.[33][34] Organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute, the Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association and Marcellus Shale Coalition were engaged in anti-nuclear lobbying in the late 2010s[35] and from 2019, large fossil fuel suppliers started advertising campaigns portraying fossil gas as a "perfect partner for renewables" (wording from Shell and Statoil advertisements).[36][37] Fossil fuel companies such as Atlantic Richfield were also donors to environmental organizations with clear anti-nuclear stances, such as Friends of the Earth.[36][38] Groups like the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council are receiving grants from other fossil fuel companies.[39][36][40] As of 2011, a strategy paper released by Greenpeace titled "Battle of Grids" proposed gradual replacement of nuclear power by fossil gas plants which would provide "flexible backup for wind and solar power".[41] However, Greenpeace has since distanced itself from" advocating for fossil gas, instead proposing grid energy storage as a solution to issues caused by intermittent renewable energy. In Germany the Energiewende, which was advertised as a shift to renewable energy but included a gradual phaseout of nuclear power from 2000 to end 2022, caused among other things a rise in fossil gas power production from 49.2 TWh in 2000 to 94.7 TWh in 2020.[42] In the same interval total electricity generation barely changed (576.6 TWh in 2000 vs 574.2 TWh in 2020) while it did rise and fall in the meantime, reaching a peak of 652.9 TWh in 2017. As much of that fossil gas was and is imported from Russia, controversial pipeline projects like Nord Stream 1 were built to satisfy increasing German gas demand. After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine it came to light that significant amounts of Russian lobbying was involved in both the continued anti-nuclear movement in Germany and the anti-fracking movement.[43][44][45]

Anti-nuclear movement - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The American Petroleum Institute (API) recently urged lawmakers in Ohio to "reject legislation that would subsidize nuclear power companies", launching an anti-nuclear campaign that marks a return to above board competition in energy markets, writes Rod Adams:

Gloves are off in fossil fuel fight against nuclear - World Nuclear News

The American Petroleum Institute (API) recently urged lawmakers in Ohio to "reject legislation that would subsidize nuclear power companies", launching an anti-nuclear campaign that marks a return to above board competition in energy markets, writes Rod Adams.

www.world-nuclear-news.org

The American Petroleum Institute, the nation's biggest and most influential lobbying group for the oil and natural gas industry, is fighting nuclear power subsidies across the U.S., poised to oppose any efforts to expand renewable electricity, and telling the Trump administration that its study on the power grid better not hurt natural gas in an effort to help coal and nuclear energy.

https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/big-oils-electric-fight-against-coal-and-nuclear-1513304200

• 
  Are Fossil Fuel Interests Bankrolling The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement? (forbes.com)
• How important has oil money been to antinuclear movement? – Atomic Insights
• The War on Nuclear — Environmental Progress
• Sierra Club — Environmental Progress
• Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) — Environmental Progress
• NRDC — Environmental Progress
• Bridging the gap: Do fast-reacting fossil technologies facilitate renewable energy diffusion? – ScienceDirect
• https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/alternatives/battleofthegrids.pdf
• The Oil Industry Is Quietly Winning Local Climate Fights
• http://climatecoalition.org/wp-cont...trys-Plan-t-o-Sink-Nuclear-Power-04-11-19.pdf
• http://climatecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/API-Presentation.pdf
• #15 – AEC authorizing legislation, fiscal year 1965 … pt.2. – Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library
• #222 – Cooperative Power Reactor Demonstration Program, 1963 : hearings … – Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library
• 

  The Fossil fuel industry's war on nuclear energy - Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak

  Introduction The true cost of not building and keeping nuclear energy is more fossil fuels, and of course, the industry knows that which is why they have done everything possible to keep nuclear power down for as long as nuclear energy has existed. Already back in 1930, the energy suppliers were...

  rpmanetworks.com

Anyone actually interested in the truth, can with a simple google search find many articles presenting the evidence for the fossil fuel industry trying to sabotage nuclear energy. The evidence is overwhelming.

As far as your gripe about what I said about carbon-free liquid fuels:

1. Hydrogen (#1): Yes, hydrogen is explosive, but it’s already used safely in various industries with proper precautions. Plus, it burns cleanly, producing only water vapor.
2. Ammonia (#2): Ammonia is hazardous, but it’s already widely used as a fertilizer. With proper handling, it can be a clean fuel alternative, producing nitrogen and water when burned.
3. Synthetic Fuels (e.g., Methanol, Synthetic Diesel, Synthetic Gasoline, Butanol): These can be carbon-neutral when produced using captured CO2 and nuclear-generated hydrogen. The key here is that they don’t add new CO2 to the atmosphere, unlike fossil fuels.
4. Liquid Hydrogen Carriers (#8): While they are complex, advancements in technology can make them efficient for certain applications, especially where hydrogen storage and transport are concerns.

It's ironic to claim hydrogen is too dangerous because it’s explosive while ignoring that gasoline (petrol) is also highly flammable and has caused countless explosions and fires. Every fuel comes with risks, but the difference lies in how we manage those risks. Hydrogen, with proper storage and handling, can be just as safe as gasoline.

Claiming that fossil fuels burned "cleanly" release only CO2 and H2O is misleading. While it's true that CO2 and water vapor are the primary byproducts, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that significantly contributes to global warming. The notion that CO2 is "clean" ignores its environmental impact. Moreover, burning fossil fuels also releases pollutants like nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter, which contribute to smog, acid rain, and respiratory issues. Fossil fuels are far from being "clean" compared to zero-emission alternatives.

The government’s encouragement through the CRA was about expanding access to credit responsibly, not about forcing banks to make bad loans. The crisis wasn't caused solely by "lower quality mortgages" but by how banks bundled these loans into complex financial products, misrepresented their risks, and sold them off globally. The real issue was the reckless behavior enabled by deregulation and the banks' pursuit of profit at the expense of financial stability.

Several major banks, including Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America, were key players in lobbying for the repeal of Glass-Steagall. In 1999 alone, the financial industry spent over $300 million on lobbying and campaign contributions to push for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Citigroup, for example, was a significant advocate for the repeal, as it directly benefited from the ability to merge commercial banking, investment banking, and insurance services under one roof, which had been prohibited by Glass-Steagall.

"The fossil fuel industry starting from the 1950s

No, silly, the link where I agreed with your claim.

Hydrogen (#1): Yes, hydrogen is explosive,

And corrosive. Are you going to drive around with a cryogenic liquid or just a highly compressed bomb...err...tank?

Ammonia is hazardous, but it’s already widely used as a fertilizer.

Not in millions or vehicles.

These can be carbon-neutral when produced using captured CO2 and nuclear-generated hydrogen.

Get your fellow leftards to support a massive nuclear program first, before you come up with so many creative ways to waste the power they would generate.

Liquid Hydrogen Carriers (#8): While they are complex, advancements in technology can make them efficient for certain applications,

Just not for vehicles.

It's ironic to claim hydrogen is too dangerous because it’s explosive while ignoring that gasoline (petrol) is also highly flammable

No, it isn't. I can safely store gasoline for a decade, how long can you leave a tank of h2 sitting around?


Hydrogen, with proper storage and handling, can be just as safe as gasoline.

Tell me the secret of proper storage, handling and transportation.


The government’s encouragement through the CRA was about expanding access to credit responsibly, not about forcing banks to make bad loans.


The banks didn't need to be encouraged to make good loans.
They were pressured to make bad ones. And then encouraged to make even more crappy loans by the demand created when HUD forced Fannie and Freddie to buy so many.

How many subprime mortgages did they buy again? Did you ever find out? Was it over $1 trillion?

Citigroup, for example, was a significant advocate for the repeal, as it directly benefited from the ability to merge commercial banking, investment banking, and insurance services under one roof, which had been prohibited by Glass-Steagall.

When you look at all the new stuff they could do, which was the risky one(s) that lost their depositor's money?

Do they still offer all those services under one roof?

 

[jc456]

The government’s encouragement through the CRA was about expanding access to credit responsibly, not about forcing banks to make bad loans. The crisis wasn't caused solely by "lower quality mortgages" but by how banks bundled these loans into complex financial products, misrepresented their risks, and sold them off globally. The real issue was the reckless behavior enabled by deregulation and the banks' pursuit of profit at the expense of financial stability.

Go back and reread the link I posted yesterday. From that link. They actually named the mortgage NINJA loan.
No income, no job, no assets.

During the early-to-mid 2000s, the lending standards for some lenders became so relaxed; it sparked the creation of the NINJA loan: "no income, no job, no assets." Investment firms were eager to buy these loans and repackage them as mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and other structured credit products.

 

[TruthNotBS]

"The fossil fuel industry starting from the 1950s

No, silly, the link where I agreed with your claim.

Hydrogen (#1): Yes, hydrogen is explosive,

And corrosive. Are you going to drive around with a cryogenic liquid or just a highly compressed bomb...err...tank?

Ammonia is hazardous, but it’s already widely used as a fertilizer.

Not in millions or vehicles.

These can be carbon-neutral when produced using captured CO2 and nuclear-generated hydrogen.

Get your fellow leftards to support a massive nuclear program first, before you come up with so many creative ways to waste the power they would generate.

Liquid Hydrogen Carriers (#8): While they are complex, advancements in technology can make them efficient for certain applications,

Just not for vehicles.

It's ironic to claim hydrogen is too dangerous because it’s explosive while ignoring that gasoline (petrol) is also highly flammable

No, it isn't. I can safely store gasoline for a decade, how long can you leave a tank of h2 sitting around?


Hydrogen, with proper storage and handling, can be just as safe as gasoline.

Tell me the secret of proper storage, handling and transportation.


The government’s encouragement through the CRA was about expanding access to credit responsibly, not about forcing banks to make bad loans.


The banks didn't need to be encouraged to make good loans.
They were pressured to make bad ones. And then encouraged to make even more crappy loans by the demand created when HUD forced Fannie and Freddie to buy so many.

How many subprime mortgages did they buy again? Did you ever find out? Was it over $1 trillion?

Citigroup, for example, was a significant advocate for the repeal, as it directly benefited from the ability to merge commercial banking, investment banking, and insurance services under one roof, which had been prohibited by Glass-Steagall.

When you look at all the new stuff they could do, which was the risky one(s) that lost their depositor's money?

Do they still offer all those services under one roof?

You're ridiculous Todd. It doesn't matter if you agree with my claim or not. The evidence clearly shows that the fossil fuel industry has been actively working against nuclear energy for decades through lobbying efforts and by funding environmental groups that oppose nuclear power. They see nuclear energy as a threat to their profits and have invested significant resources to influence public opinion and policy in their favor. Denying this reality doesn't change the facts or the overwhelming evidence that supports it.

If you're genuinely interested in the truth, the references I provided earlier offer detailed documentation of these efforts.

1. Hydrogen’s Safety: Yes, hydrogen is explosive and corrosive, but so is gasoline. The difference lies in handling and storage technology. Hydrogen’s use is already expanding in fuel cells, and with advancements in materials science, it can be stored and transported safely. It’s about evolving technology to match the fuel, not dismissing it out of fear.
2. Ammonia Use in Vehicles: Ammonia may not be common in vehicles now, but it’s already used safely in large-scale industrial applications. The transition to alternative fuels will require new infrastructure, just as gasoline did a century ago.
3. Nuclear Power and Carbon-Neutral Fuels: The idea of using nuclear power to generate hydrogen and other synthetic fuels is viable and has been researched extensively. Dismissing it as "wasting power" ignores the need for sustainable, carbon-neutral energy sources, which are crucial for combating climate change.
4. Liquid Hydrogen Carriers for Vehicles: While currently complex, liquid hydrogen carriers have potential, especially for specific applications like long-haul trucking or heavy industry. As with any new technology, initial challenges don’t negate long-term viability.
5. Hydrogen Storage vs. Gasoline: Gasoline is flammable, and while it can be stored for a long time, it’s not without risks. Hydrogen storage is improving rapidly, and with proper technology, it can be made just as safe, if not safer, than gasoline.
6. CRA and Subprime Mortgages: The CRA aimed to ensure fair access to credit, not to encourage risky lending. Banks were not forced to make bad loans; they chose to do so, motivated by the potential profits from securitization. The argument that Fannie and Freddie were solely responsible ignores the broader context of deregulation and financial industry greed.
7. Citigroup and Glass-Steagall: Citigroup’s lobbying for the repeal of Glass-Steagall was motivated by the desire to engage in more profitable but riskier activities, like merging commercial and investment banking. The point isn’t that depositor funds were directly lost but that the repeal enabled a culture of excessive risk-taking that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis.
8. Banks Offering Multiple Services: Banks like Citigroup continue to offer a range of financial services under one roof, and while not all activities are inherently risky, the lack of separation increases the potential for systemic risk, as seen in the financial crisis.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Go back and reread the link I posted yesterday. From that link. They actually named the mortgage NINJA loan.
No income, no job, no assets.

During the early-to-mid 2000s, the lending standards for some lenders became so relaxed; it sparked the creation of the NINJA loan: "no income, no job, no assets." Investment firms were eager to buy these loans and repackage them as mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and other structured credit products.

NINJA loans were a reckless and egregious example of irresponsible lending, but the crisis wasn’t solely about these loans existing. It was about how banks bundled these risky loans into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and sold them off as safe investments globally. The real issue lies in the deregulated environment that allowed banks to take these risks without proper oversight. They weren’t forced by the CRA to make bad loans; they chose to exploit these opportunities for massive short-term profits, and that's what led to the collapse. The crisis was a systemic failure fueled by greed and deregulation, not simply the existence of risky loans.

let's not forget the role of the banking industry's intense lobbying efforts to repeal Glass-Steagall. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to get this law repealed because it was crucial for them to engage in riskier activities like bundling subprime loans into MBS. If this repeal wasn’t significant, they wouldn’t have invested so heavily. According to a report by the Center for Responsive Politics, the financial sector spent over $5 billion on lobbying from 1998 to 2008. Citigroup, for example, was a major player in these efforts, benefiting directly from the ability to merge commercial and investment banking activities.

For detailed evidence, you can look into “All the Devils Are Here” by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera, which outlines the lobbying efforts leading to the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Additionally, "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis provides insights into how these deregulated practices led to the crisis. The banking industry’s lobbying is well-documented in sources like these, revealing how crucial the repeal was to their strategy of maximizing profits, regardless of the broader economic consequences.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're ridiculous Todd. It doesn't matter if you agree with my claim or not. The evidence clearly shows that the fossil fuel industry has been actively working against nuclear energy for decades through lobbying efforts and by funding environmental groups that oppose nuclear power. They see nuclear energy as a threat to their profits and have invested significant resources to influence public opinion and policy in their favor. Denying this reality doesn't change the facts or the overwhelming evidence that supports it.

If you're genuinely interested in the truth, the references I provided earlier offer detailed documentation of these efforts.

1. Hydrogen’s Safety: Yes, hydrogen is explosive and corrosive, but so is gasoline. The difference lies in handling and storage technology. Hydrogen’s use is already expanding in fuel cells, and with advancements in materials science, it can be stored and transported safely. It’s about evolving technology to match the fuel, not dismissing it out of fear.
2. Ammonia Use in Vehicles: Ammonia may not be common in vehicles now, but it’s already used safely in large-scale industrial applications. The transition to alternative fuels will require new infrastructure, just as gasoline did a century ago.
3. Nuclear Power and Carbon-Neutral Fuels: The idea of using nuclear power to generate hydrogen and other synthetic fuels is viable and has been researched extensively. Dismissing it as "wasting power" ignores the need for sustainable, carbon-neutral energy sources, which are crucial for combating climate change.
4. Liquid Hydrogen Carriers for Vehicles: While currently complex, liquid hydrogen carriers have potential, especially for specific applications like long-haul trucking or heavy industry. As with any new technology, initial challenges don’t negate long-term viability.
5. Hydrogen Storage vs. Gasoline: Gasoline is flammable, and while it can be stored for a long time, it’s not without risks. Hydrogen storage is improving rapidly, and with proper technology, it can be made just as safe, if not safer, than gasoline.
6. CRA and Subprime Mortgages: The CRA aimed to ensure fair access to credit, not to encourage risky lending. Banks were not forced to make bad loans; they chose to do so, motivated by the potential profits from securitization. The argument that Fannie and Freddie were solely responsible ignores the broader context of deregulation and financial industry greed.
7. Citigroup and Glass-Steagall: Citigroup’s lobbying for the repeal of Glass-Steagall was motivated by the desire to engage in more profitable but riskier activities, like merging commercial and investment banking. The point isn’t that depositor funds were directly lost but that the repeal enabled a culture of excessive risk-taking that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis.
8. Banks Offering Multiple Services: Banks like Citigroup continue to offer a range of financial services under one roof, and while not all activities are inherently risky, the lack of separation increases the potential for systemic risk, as seen in the financial crisis.

Yes, hydrogen is explosive and corrosive, but so is gasoline.

We've safely handled gasoline for hundreds of millions of cars for decades.
We've got the hang of it. Hydrogen, not even close. Much more dangerous.
Much harder to handle, store and transport. And so not worth it. It has a fraction of the energy of a similar volume of gasoline.

Ammonia may not be common in vehicles now, but it’s already used safely in large-scale industrial applications.

There is such a huge difference between using it in industrial plants and using it
in millions of vehicles. It's like you're on a different planet.

The idea of using nuclear power to generate hydrogen and other synthetic fuels is viable and has been researched extensively.

Yeah, making a few gallons in a lab, very useful.

Dismissing it as "wasting power"

I only dismiss it because it is a massive waste of energy and money.

liquid hydrogen carriers have potential, especially for specific applications like long-haul trucking or heavy industry.

Another massive waste of energy and money.

Hydrogen storage is improving rapidly, and with proper technology,

How are you storing it? As a liquid or under massive pressure?

it can be made just as safe, if not safer, than gasoline.

Nope.

The CRA aimed to ensure fair access to credit, not to encourage risky lending.

Good credit risks already had access to credit.

Banks were not forced to make bad loans;

Unless you have evidence that CRA default rates were as low as standard mortgage default rates, I'm going to have to say you're lying again.

The argument that Fannie and Freddie were solely responsible

I have never said anyone or anything was solely responsible for anything.
Stop lying, liar.

The point isn’t that depositor funds were directly lost but that the repeal enabled a culture of excessive risk-taking that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis.

They were able to take excessive risk, but they didn't lose any money?

Banks like Citigroup continue to offer a range of financial services under one roof, and while not all activities are inherently risky, the lack of separation increases the potential for systemic risk, as seen in the financial crisis.

Or maybe diversification made them less risky?
Which banks that diversified failed?
From what I've seen, it was the single service firms that failed.

How many subprime mortgages did Fannie and Freddie buy again?
Did you ever find out? Was it over $1 trillion?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

NINJA loans were a reckless and egregious example of irresponsible lending, but the crisis wasn’t solely about these loans existing. It was about how banks bundled these risky loans into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and sold them off as safe investments globally. The real issue lies in the deregulated environment that allowed banks to take these risks without proper oversight. They weren’t forced by the CRA to make bad loans; they chose to exploit these opportunities for massive short-term profits, and that's what led to the collapse. The crisis was a systemic failure fueled by greed and deregulation, not simply the existence of risky loans.

let's not forget the role of the banking industry's intense lobbying efforts to repeal Glass-Steagall. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to get this law repealed because it was crucial for them to engage in riskier activities like bundling subprime loans into MBS. If this repeal wasn’t significant, they wouldn’t have invested so heavily. According to a report by the Center for Responsive Politics, the financial sector spent over $5 billion on lobbying from 1998 to 2008. Citigroup, for example, was a major player in these efforts, benefiting directly from the ability to merge commercial and investment banking activities.

For detailed evidence, you can look into “All the Devils Are Here” by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera, which outlines the lobbying efforts leading to the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Additionally, "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis provides insights into how these deregulated practices led to the crisis. The banking industry’s lobbying is well-documented in sources like these, revealing how crucial the repeal was to their strategy of maximizing profits, regardless of the broader economic consequences.

NINJA loans were a reckless and egregious example of irresponsible lending, but the crisis wasn’t solely about these loans existing. It was about how banks bundled these risky loans into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and sold them off as safe investments globally.

What about the risky loans that Fannie and Freddie bought and bundled and sold?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Yes, hydrogen is explosive and corrosive, but so is gasoline.

We've safely handled gasoline for hundreds of millions of cars for decades.
We've got the hang of it. Hydrogen, not even close. Much more dangerous.
Much harder to handle, store and transport. And so not worth it. It has a fraction of the energy of a similar volume of gasoline.

Ammonia may not be common in vehicles now, but it’s already used safely in large-scale industrial applications.

There is such a huge difference between using it in industrial plants and using it
in millions of vehicles. It's like you're on a different planet.

The idea of using nuclear power to generate hydrogen and other synthetic fuels is viable and has been researched extensively.

Yeah, making a few gallons in a lab, very useful.

Dismissing it as "wasting power"

I only dismiss it because it is a massive waste of energy and money.

liquid hydrogen carriers have potential, especially for specific applications like long-haul trucking or heavy industry.

Another massive waste of energy and money.

Hydrogen storage is improving rapidly, and with proper technology,

How are you storing it? As a liquid or under massive pressure?

it can be made just as safe, if not safer, than gasoline.

Nope.

The CRA aimed to ensure fair access to credit, not to encourage risky lending.

Good credit risks already had access to credit.

Banks were not forced to make bad loans;

Unless you have evidence that CRA default rates were as low as standard mortgage default rates, I'm going to have to say you're lying again.

The argument that Fannie and Freddie were solely responsible

I have never said anyone or anything was solely responsible for anything.
Stop lying, liar.

The point isn’t that depositor funds were directly lost but that the repeal enabled a culture of excessive risk-taking that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis.

They were able to take excessive risk, but they didn't lose any money?

Banks like Citigroup continue to offer a range of financial services under one roof, and while not all activities are inherently risky, the lack of separation increases the potential for systemic risk, as seen in the financial crisis.

Or maybe diversification made them less risky?
Which banks that diversified failed?
From what I've seen, it was the single service firms that failed.

How many subprime mortgages did Fannie and Freddie buy again?
Did you ever find out? Was it over $1 trillion?

More of Todd's disingenuous, absurd claptrap objections and false accusations.

While it's true that hydrogen poses challenges, these are not insurmountable. The technology for handling, storing, and transporting hydrogen is advancing rapidly. Hydrogen’s energy density per unit weight is actually higher than gasoline, though its energy per unit volume is lower. New storage methods, such as advanced composites and metal hydrides, are addressing these issues, making hydrogen a viable alternative for specific applications, especially in heavy industry and long-haul transport.

The safe and effective use of ammonia in large-scale industrial applications demonstrates its potential. While scaling down for vehicle use involves challenges, they are being actively researched and addressed. Ammonia has a high energy density and can be produced sustainably, making it a promising candidate for future energy solutions.

Nuclear power plants have the potential to produce hydrogen on a large scale through high-temperature electrolysis or thermochemical processes. These technologies are not just lab experiments but are being scaled up for industrial use. Dismissing this as a "massive waste" ignores the potential for reducing carbon emissions and providing a sustainable energy source.

Hydrogen can be stored safely as a liquid at cryogenic temperatures or under pressure in advanced composite tanks. Both methods have been proven safe in various applications, including fuel cell vehicles. The development of new storage materials, such as metal-organic frameworks, further enhances safety and efficiency.

The CRA’s goal was to prevent redlining and ensure that low- and moderate-income borrowers had access to credit, not to encourage risky lending. Multiple studies have shown that CRA loans performed comparably to or better than subprime loans made by non-CRA lenders. The real drivers of the 2008 crisis were the proliferation of subprime loans, lax regulation, and the complex financial instruments that repackaged risky loans into ostensibly safe securities.

While Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did purchase subprime mortgages, they were not the main drivers of the crisis. The bulk of subprime mortgages were originated by private lenders and securitized by Wall Street firms. Fannie and Freddie’s involvement in the subprime market was relatively late and smaller in scale compared to the private sector. Moreover, their role has been widely mischaracterized by those seeking to deflect blame from the deregulation of the financial industry.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed commercial banks to engage in investment banking activities, leading to a culture of excessive risk-taking. While diversification can spread risk, it also allowed these banks to engage in highly speculative activities that contributed to the crisis. For example, Citigroup, which was one of the largest beneficiaries of Glass-Steagall’s repeal, required a massive bailout during the financial crisis. The argument that diversification inherently reduces risk ignores how these banks used their new powers to engage in activities that ultimately increased systemic risk.

 

[TruthNotBS]

NINJA loans were a reckless and egregious example of irresponsible lending, but the crisis wasn’t solely about these loans existing. It was about how banks bundled these risky loans into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and sold them off as safe investments globally.

What about the risky loans that Fannie and Freddie bought and bundled and sold?

You're shifting the focus from the real issue here. The point I made about NINJA loans was to highlight how private lenders drove the crisis by bundling these high-risk, reckless loans into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and selling them as safe investments globally. This practice was at the core of the financial meltdown. Yes, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did buy some subprime loans, but their involvement was nowhere near the scale of the private sector's activities. They were late to the game and did not originate these loans, they mainly bought them to maintain liquidity in the market once the crisis was already brewing.

The vast majority of these toxic assets came from private lenders who were the real culprits in this disaster. So, trying to pin the blame primarily on Fannie and Freddie is just a deflection from the systemic issues caused by deregulation and the reckless behavior of private financial institutions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More of Todd's disingenuous, absurd claptrap objections and false accusations.

While it's true that hydrogen poses challenges, these are not insurmountable. The technology for handling, storing, and transporting hydrogen is advancing rapidly. Hydrogen’s energy density per unit weight is actually higher than gasoline, though its energy per unit volume is lower. New storage methods, such as advanced composites and metal hydrides, are addressing these issues, making hydrogen a viable alternative for specific applications, especially in heavy industry and long-haul transport.

The safe and effective use of ammonia in large-scale industrial applications demonstrates its potential. While scaling down for vehicle use involves challenges, they are being actively researched and addressed. Ammonia has a high energy density and can be produced sustainably, making it a promising candidate for future energy solutions.

Nuclear power plants have the potential to produce hydrogen on a large scale through high-temperature electrolysis or thermochemical processes. These technologies are not just lab experiments but are being scaled up for industrial use. Dismissing this as a "massive waste" ignores the potential for reducing carbon emissions and providing a sustainable energy source.

Hydrogen can be stored safely as a liquid at cryogenic temperatures or under pressure in advanced composite tanks. Both methods have been proven safe in various applications, including fuel cell vehicles. The development of new storage materials, such as metal-organic frameworks, further enhances safety and efficiency.

The CRA’s goal was to prevent redlining and ensure that low- and moderate-income borrowers had access to credit, not to encourage risky lending. Multiple studies have shown that CRA loans performed comparably to or better than subprime loans made by non-CRA lenders. The real drivers of the 2008 crisis were the proliferation of subprime loans, lax regulation, and the complex financial instruments that repackaged risky loans into ostensibly safe securities.

While Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did purchase subprime mortgages, they were not the main drivers of the crisis. The bulk of subprime mortgages were originated by private lenders and securitized by Wall Street firms. Fannie and Freddie’s involvement in the subprime market was relatively late and smaller in scale compared to the private sector. Moreover, their role has been widely mischaracterized by those seeking to deflect blame from the deregulation of the financial industry.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed commercial banks to engage in investment banking activities, leading to a culture of excessive risk-taking. While diversification can spread risk, it also allowed these banks to engage in highly speculative activities that contributed to the crisis. For example, Citigroup, which was one of the largest beneficiaries of Glass-Steagall’s repeal, required a massive bailout during the financial crisis. The argument that diversification inherently reduces risk ignores how these banks used their new powers to engage in activities that ultimately increased systemic risk.

Hydrogen’s energy density per unit weight is actually higher than gasoline,

Hydrogen isn't transported or stored by weight.

The safe and effective use of ammonia in large-scale industrial applications demonstrates its potential.

Drivers fueling and crashing their ammonia powered cars are much different than industrial users.

Hydrogen can be stored safely as a liquid at cryogenic temperatures or under pressure in advanced composite tanks.

For how long? How did they solve the embrittlement problem?

The CRA’s goal was to prevent redlining and ensure that low- and moderate-income borrowers had access to credit,

By reducing lending standards.

Multiple studies have shown that CRA loans performed comparably to or better than subprime loans made by non-CRA lenders.

How did they compare to bank loans that were non-CRA loans?

While Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did purchase subprime mortgages, they were not the main drivers of the crisis.

How many did they buy, dollar wise? Did you ever find out? Are you afraid to post the numbers?

If you won't post the dollar value, how about the percentage of outstanding subprime mortgages purchased by the GSEs? And by other government lenders as well? You said they weren't the main drivers; how large a portion of the crisis were they? Less than 10%? Less than 25%? Less than 50%? More than 50%?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're shifting the focus from the real issue here. The point I made about NINJA loans was to highlight how private lenders drove the crisis by bundling these high-risk, reckless loans into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and selling them as safe investments globally. This practice was at the core of the financial meltdown. Yes, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did buy some subprime loans, but their involvement was nowhere near the scale of the private sector's activities. They were late to the game and did not originate these loans, they mainly bought them to maintain liquidity in the market once the crisis was already brewing.

The vast majority of these toxic assets came from private lenders who were the real culprits in this disaster. So, trying to pin the blame primarily on Fannie and Freddie is just a deflection from the systemic issues caused by deregulation and the reckless behavior of private financial institutions.

The point I made about NINJA loans was to highlight how private lenders drove the crisis by bundling these high-risk, reckless loans into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and selling them as safe investments globally.

What percentage of subprime loans were NINJA loans?

Yes, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did buy some subprime loans, but their involvement was nowhere near the scale of the private sector's activities.


Post your evidence.

The vast majority of these toxic assets came from private lenders who were the real culprits in this disaster.

What percentage? Show me. If Fannie and Freddie bought the toxic assets, is that the private lender's problem, or the GSE's problem?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed commercial banks to engage in investment banking activities, leading to a culture of excessive risk-taking. While diversification can spread risk, it also allowed these banks to engage in highly speculative activities that contributed to the crisis. For example, Citigroup, which was one of the largest beneficiaries of Glass-Steagall’s repeal, required a massive bailout during the financial crisis. The argument that diversification inherently reduces risk ignores how these banks used their new powers to engage in activities that ultimately increased systemic risk.

How many of the riskier, more diversified, highly speculative, excessive risk-taking firms failed?

How big were they?

How many safer, undiversified firms failed. How big were they?

 

[TruthNotBS]

The point I made about NINJA loans was to highlight how private lenders drove the crisis by bundling these high-risk, reckless loans into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and selling them as safe investments globally.

What percentage of subprime loans were NINJA loans?

Yes, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did buy some subprime loans, but their involvement was nowhere near the scale of the private sector's activities.


Post your evidence.

The vast majority of these toxic assets came from private lenders who were the real culprits in this disaster.

What percentage? Show me. If Fannie and Freddie bought the toxic assets, is that the private lender's problem, or the GSE's problem?

If you're so keen on percentages and specifics, how about you provide evidence for your insinuations? What percentage of the crisis do you attribute directly to the CRA? How much lobbying money did private banks spend to push their agenda? You keep deflecting, but let's see some concrete answers from your side. Why do you continually ignore the hundreds of millions spent on lobbying to repeal Glass-Steagall if, as you suggest, it was inconsequential? If the private sector wasn't the driving force behind this crisis, why did they lobby so aggressively to dismantle the very regulations that would have prevented such a disaster?

It’s easy to demand numbers when you’re not providing any evidence yourself. Let’s see your sources.

 

[TruthNotBS]

How many of the riskier, more diversified, highly speculative, excessive risk-taking firms failed?

How big were they?

How many safer, undiversified firms failed. How big were they?

The data regarding how many riskier, more diversified, and highly speculative firms failed during the 2008 financial crisis compared to safer, undiversified firms isn't straightforward because many financial institutions were involved in various aspects of the crisis, and the causes of their failures were complex.

However, generally speaking, many of the large, diversified firms that took excessive risks, such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, failed or were forced into emergency sales. These firms were heavily involved in the subprime mortgage market and relied on highly leveraged positions. Lehman Brothers, for example, was the fourth-largest investment bank in the U.S. at the time of its failure, with over $600 billion in assets.

In contrast, smaller and more conservative regional banks, which typically avoided the risky practices of their larger counterparts, were less likely to fail. Nonetheless, even some smaller institutions failed due to exposure to toxic assets they had purchased, though their failures were less impactful on the overall economy.
If you are interested in a deeper analysis, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) report and other detailed studies on the 2008 crisis provide a breakdown of specific institutions, their risk profiles, and the consequences of their risk-taking behaviors.

Todd, it’s time you start backing up your claims with actual evidence instead of dodging the core issues with endless questions. You keep demanding percentages and figures, yet you haven’t provided any concrete evidence to support your own claims.

You’re asking for percentages of NINJA loans and the toxic assets held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—so where are your sources? And while you’re at it, explain why the banking industry spent hundreds of millions lobbying to repeal Glass-Steagall if it was supposedly inconsequential.

Let’s see some real figures from you, Todd. If you’re going to challenge the facts, then back up your claims with the same level of evidence you’re demanding from others."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you're so keen on percentages and specifics, how about you provide evidence for your insinuations? What percentage of the crisis do you attribute directly to the CRA? How much lobbying money did private banks spend to push their agenda? You keep deflecting, but let's see some concrete answers from your side. Why do you continually ignore the hundreds of millions spent on lobbying to repeal Glass-Steagall if, as you suggest, it was inconsequential? If the private sector wasn't the driving force behind this crisis, why did they lobby so aggressively to dismantle the very regulations that would have prevented such a disaster?

It’s easy to demand numbers when you’re not providing any evidence yourself. Let’s see your sources.

You don't know how much Fannie and Freddie had, but you know it "was nowhere near the scale of the private sector's activities"?

How do you know that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The data regarding how many riskier, more diversified, and highly speculative firms failed during the 2008 financial crisis compared to safer, undiversified firms isn't straightforward because many financial institutions were involved in various aspects of the crisis, and the causes of their failures were complex.

However, generally speaking, many of the large, diversified firms that took excessive risks, such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, failed or were forced into emergency sales. These firms were heavily involved in the subprime mortgage market and relied on highly leveraged positions. Lehman Brothers, for example, was the fourth-largest investment bank in the U.S. at the time of its failure, with over $600 billion in assets.

In contrast, smaller and more conservative regional banks, which typically avoided the risky practices of their larger counterparts, were less likely to fail. Nonetheless, even some smaller institutions failed due to exposure to toxic assets they had purchased, though their failures were less impactful on the overall economy.
If you are interested in a deeper analysis, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) report and other detailed studies on the 2008 crisis provide a breakdown of specific institutions, their risk profiles, and the consequences of their risk-taking behaviors.

Todd, it’s time you start backing up your claims with actual evidence instead of dodging the core issues with endless questions. You keep demanding percentages and figures, yet you haven’t provided any concrete evidence to support your own claims.

You’re asking for percentages of NINJA loans and the toxic assets held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—so where are your sources? And while you’re at it, explain why the banking industry spent hundreds of millions lobbying to repeal Glass-Steagall if it was supposedly inconsequential.

Let’s see some real figures from you, Todd. If you’re going to challenge the facts, then back up your claims with the same level of evidence you’re demanding from others."

However, generally speaking, many of the large, diversified firms that took excessive risks, such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, failed or were forced into emergency sales. These firms were heavily involved in the subprime mortgage market and relied on highly leveraged positions. Lehman Brothers, for example, was the fourth-largest investment bank in the U.S. at the time of its failure, with over $600 billion in assets.

Bear Stearns and Lehman were investment banks
They didn't take customer deposits.
How were they diversified?
What did they do post Glass-Steagall that they couldn't do before?

 

[TruthNotBS]

You don't know how much Fannie and Freddie had, but you know it "was nowhere near the scale of the private sector's activities"?

How do you know that?

It's convenient for you to question my knowledge while sidestepping the lack of evidence for your own claims. You keep asking how I know Fannie and Freddie's involvement wasn't as extensive as the private sector’s, yet you haven’t provided any data to support your implication that they were equally or more responsible. If you have the facts, present them. And while you're at it, explain why banks invested so heavily in lobbying to repeal Glass-Steagall if it wasn’t crucial to their speculative activities.

 

[TruthNotBS]

However, generally speaking, many of the large, diversified firms that took excessive risks, such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, failed or were forced into emergency sales. These firms were heavily involved in the subprime mortgage market and relied on highly leveraged positions. Lehman Brothers, for example, was the fourth-largest investment bank in the U.S. at the time of its failure, with over $600 billion in assets.

Bear Stearns and Lehman were investment banks
They didn't take customer deposits.
How were they diversified?
What did they do post Glass-Steagall that they couldn't do before?

You’re quick to mention Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, but let's break this down. You say they didn’t take customer deposits and weren’t diversified, yet you gloss over the fact that these firms were heavily involved in highly leveraged, risky investments, particularly in subprime mortgages. If they weren't diversified, then how did their failure impact so many areas of the economy? How exactly were they operating post-Glass-Steagall in ways that they couldn't have before? Provide concrete evidence and clear answers. Show me the data that backs your claims, and while you're at it, why did the financial industry pour hundreds of millions into lobbying to repeal Glass-Steagall if it was supposedly inconsequential? Let’s see some substance instead of just throwing questions back at me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You’re quick to mention Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, but let's break this down. You say they didn’t take customer deposits and weren’t diversified, yet you gloss over the fact that these firms were heavily involved in highly leveraged, risky investments, particularly in subprime mortgages. If they weren't diversified, then how did their failure impact so many areas of the economy? How exactly were they operating post-Glass-Steagall in ways that they couldn't have before? Provide concrete evidence and clear answers. Show me the data that backs your claims, and while you're at it, why did the financial industry pour hundreds of millions into lobbying to repeal Glass-Steagall if it was supposedly inconsequential? Let’s see some substance instead of just throwing questions back at me.

You’re quick to mention Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, but let's break this down. You say they didn’t take customer deposits and weren’t diversified, yet you gloss over the fact that these firms were heavily involved in highly leveraged, risky investments, particularly in subprime mortgages.

Hold on one second....are you saying Lehman and Bear Stearns failed because they held a lot of subprime mortgages and not because they did anything different after Glass Steagall? I'm shocked!!!

 

[TruthNotBS]

You’re quick to mention Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, but let's break this down. You say they didn’t take customer deposits and weren’t diversified, yet you gloss over the fact that these firms were heavily involved in highly leveraged, risky investments, particularly in subprime mortgages.

Hold on one second....are you saying Lehman and Bear Stearns failed because they held a lot of subprime mortgages and not because they did anything different after Glass Steagall? I'm shocked!!!

The repeal allowed these investment banks to take on even greater risks without the same level of regulation that commercial banks had before. Now, you claim it’s all about subprime mortgages—then prove it. Where’s your evidence that these firms wouldn’t have collapsed without the deregulation that allowed them to gamble on risky financial products? And why were they so heavily involved in these products post-Glass-Steagall if it didn’t matter?

if repealing Glass-Steagall was inconsequential, why did the banking industry invest so much money in lobbying for its repeal? The answer is simple: they saw an opportunity to remove barriers that prevented them from engaging in more profitable but riskier financial activities. By merging commercial and investment banking, they could leverage customer deposits for speculative investments, maximizing profits while offloading risks.