Should the Glass Steagall Act be brought back?

[Dad2three]

Have You Heard About The 16 Trillion Dollar Bailout The Federal Reserve Handed To The Too Big To Fail Banks?

According to the GAO audit, $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010. The following list of firms and the amount of money that they received was taken directly from page 131 of the GAO audit report....

Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion

These 20 banks are all in the whose who in regards to banks. They were all bailed out through back door loans from the Federal Reserve..........not to mention the IMF bailouts......

These 20 banks make up the lion's share of Global Banking assets............

So the argument of only a few banks involved is utter BS considering the size of the banks involved.

Yes, Federal reserve has some issues, but believing in the MYTHS AND FAIRY TALES LIBERTARIANS PUSH, THAT WE CAN GO BACK TO THE BOOMS AND BUST PERIODS THAT ON AVERAGE, HAD A 2008 TYPE CRISIS EVERY 3-5 YEARS, 1800-1913 IS JUST IGNORANT!


Panic of 1819, a U.S. recession with bank failures; culmination of U.S.'s first boom-to-bust economic cycle

Panic of 1819 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Panic of 1837 was a financial crisis in the United States that touched off a major recession that lasted until the mid-1840s. Profits, prices and wages went down while unemployment went up

Panic of 1837 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

Born, who pushed to strictly regulate derivatives under the Clinton Administration, but lost the battle to, among other people, Alan Greenspan, told the former Federal Reserve chair that his agency “failed to prevent housing bubble, failed to prevent the predatory lending scandal, failed to prevent the activities that would bring the financial system to the verge of collapse.”

l]

Yo retard even the formidable KGB couldn't control the blackmarket. Shut the fuck up.

Black market? lol

Ignorance you show on this site is hilarious Bubba

 

[Dad2three]

The poster who continues to say only a few banks were involved in this mess is absolutely right. Only a few were deeply involved in this mess.

But he failed to mention just big these few were and are today.

http://www.milkeninstitute.com/pdf/TBTF.pdf

To get an idea of just how big the big banks are, two measures are used: asset size and asset
size as a percentage of U.S. GDP; then on the global level, asset size and asset size per world
GDP. In the U.S. analysis, the top five bank holding companies account for slightly over half of
all U.S. bank holding company assets, while the 50 largest BHCs account for 89 percent of total
assets. The biggest BHC, JPMorgan Chase, has $2.3 trillion in assets; by comparison, the world’s
largest publicly traded bank is Deutsche Bank, with $3 trillion of assets. As one adds the assets
of more BHCs, the cumulative total relative to GDP reaches 98 percent for the 50 biggest U.S.
companies. The assets of just the 10 biggest companies equal 75 percent of GDP. It could only
take trouble at a few large financial companies to sharply curtail available credit and disrupt
real economic activity. A catastrophic scenario would be one in which difficulty at key banks
disrupts the payments system that constitutes the central nervous system of the U.S. economy.
Worldwide, based on asset size, the five biggest banks accounted for 14 percent of total bank
assets in Q4 2011. The 50 biggest banks or BHCs accounted for nearly 70 percent of total bank
assets. The banks are headquartered in 16 countries that account for 71 percent of world GDP.
The assets of these 50 big banks were nearly equal to world GDP in the Q4 2011. Furthermore,
seven of these banks have assets that exceed 100 percent of the GDP of their home countries.
These are indeed big banks. But will the reforms being undertaken help or hinder the TBTF
problem?

Economics: Break Up the Big Banks - APDAWeb Wiki

Since the early 1970s, the share of assets controlled by the 12 largest banks in the United States has ballooned to over 70% of total banking assets, leading many to call these megabanks “too big to fail.” Our case is very simple: we say the US federal government should break up the big banks

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.

More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion.


The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.



Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

Easy does it Vern.

Is it a FACT that the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.?


.

RIGHT WING GARBAGE. I'm shocked



George W. Bush was a major proponent of the kind of mortgages that banks had started making under the CRA. .

HUH?


Was George Bush a member of a community group like ACORN?


"So-called "community groups" like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion. The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA "protest" is issued by a "community group." This can cost banks great sums of money, and the "community groups" understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities."

.

October 15, 2002

President Hosts Conference on Minority Homeownership


I set an ambitious goal. It's one that I believe we can achieve. It's a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we'll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families. (in 2004 GOP convention he upped it to 7 million)


Some may think that's a stretch. I don't think it is. I think it is realistic. I know we're going to have to work together to achieve it. But when we do our communities will be stronger and so will our economy. Achieving the goal is going to require some good policies out of Washington. And it's going to require a strong commitment from those of you involved in the housing industry.

President Hosts Conference on Minority Homeownership

 

[Dad2three]

Born, who pushed to strictly regulate derivatives under the Clinton Administration, but lost the battle to, among other people, Alan Greenspan, told the former Federal Reserve chair that his agency “failed to prevent housing bubble, failed to prevent the predatory lending scandal, failed to prevent the activities that would bring the financial system to the verge of collapse.”

l]

Yo retard even the formidable KGB couldn't control the blackmarket. Shut the fuck up.

 

[Contumacious]

Born, who pushed to strictly regulate derivatives under the Clinton Administration, but lost the battle to, among other people, Alan Greenspan, told the former Federal Reserve chair that his agency “failed to prevent housing bubble, failed to prevent the predatory lending scandal, failed to prevent the activities that would bring the financial system to the verge of collapse.”

l]

Yo retard even the formidable KGB couldn't control the blackmarket. Shut the fuck up.

Black market? lol

Ignorance you show on this site is hilarious Bubba

Tell me fucktard, what regulation would have prevented the collapse?

Would assigning a federal agent to each and everyone in the banking industry satisfy your socialistic inclinations?

.

 

[Contumacious]

Born, who pushed to strictly regulate derivatives under the Clinton Administration, but lost the battle to, among other people, Alan Greenspan, told the former Federal Reserve chair that his agency “failed to prevent housing bubble, failed to prevent the predatory lending scandal, failed to prevent the activities that would bring the financial system to the verge of collapse.”

l]

Yo retard even the formidable KGB couldn't control the blackmarket. Shut the fuck up.

If I remember correctly , Bush was a "compassionate Conservative". No politician can be elected nowadays unless they enhance the welfare state benefits.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it-s-the-derivatives-stupid-[/B]why-fannie-freddie-aig-had-to-be-bailed-out/10265]It?s the Derivatives, Stupid! Why Fannie, Freddie, AIG had to be Bailed Out | Global Research

The Anatomy of a Bubble


Until recently, most people had never even heard of derivatives; but in terms of money traded, these investments represent the biggest financial market in the world. Derivatives are financial instruments that have no intrinsic value but derive their value from something else. Basically, they are just bets. You can “hedge your bet” that something you own will go up by placing a side bet that it will go down. “Hedge funds” hedge bets in the derivatives market. Bets can be placed on anything, from the price of tea in China to the movements of specific markets.

“The point everyone misses,” wrote economist Robert Chapman a decade ago, “is that buying derivatives is not investing. It is gambling, insurance and high stakes bookmaking. Derivatives create nothing.”1 They not only create nothing, but they serve to enrich non-producers at the expense of the people who do create real goods and services. In congressional hearings in the early 1990s, derivatives trading was challenged as being an illegal form of gambling. But the practice was legitimized by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who not only lent legal and regulatory support to the trade but actively promoted derivatives as a way to improve “risk management.” Partly, this was to boost the flagging profits of the banks; and at the larger banks and dealers, it worked. But the cost was an increase in risk to the financial system as a whole.2

Since then, derivative trades have grown exponentially, until now they are larger than the entire global economy. The Bank for International Settlements recently reported that total derivatives trades exceeded one quadrillion dollars – that’s 1,000 trillion dollars.3 How is that figure even possible? The gross domestic product of all the countries in the world is only about 60 trillion dollars. The answer is that gamblers can bet as much as they want. They can bet money they don’t have, and that is where the huge increase in risk comes in.

Fannie and Freddie didn't fail because of derivatives.

No they failed because Dubya REQUIRED them to purchase $440 BILLION MBS's in 2002, to feed his Banksters buddies coming ponzi scheme, THEN in 2004 upped their 'affordable housing goals from 50% to 56% and withdrew Clinton's s2000 rule that didn't count high cost (see subprime) loans in those totals!!!



June 17, 2004

Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


"(In 2000, Clinton ) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (BUSH), the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."

http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/files/references/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf

WEIRD RIGHT?

No they failed because Dubya REQUIRED them to purchase $440 BILLION MBS's in 2002

Sure, because the Dems running Fannie and Freddie and the Dems in Congress were totally against pushing loans to less qualified borrowers. LOL!

 

[Dad2three]

Yo retard even the formidable KGB couldn't control the blackmarket. Shut the fuck up.

Black market? lol

Ignorance you show on this site is hilarious Bubba

Tell me fucktard, what regulation would have prevented the collapse?

Would assigning a federal agent to each and everyone in the banking industry satisfy your socialistic inclinations?

.

You mean in the time of Dubya's regulator failure? Where who actually is in charge matters? Like Reagan's S&L crisis?

I can't help you grow a brain Bubba, if you want to stay an ignorant, low life libertarian sociopath, who believes in myths and fairy tales, have at it

 

[Dad2three]

Fannie and Freddie didn't fail because of derivatives.

No they failed because Dubya REQUIRED them to purchase $440 BILLION MBS's in 2002, to feed his Banksters buddies coming ponzi scheme, THEN in 2004 upped their 'affordable housing goals from 50% to 56% and withdrew Clinton's s2000 rule that didn't count high cost (see subprime) loans in those totals!!!



June 17, 2004

Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


"(In 2000, Clinton ) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (BUSH), the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."

http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/files/references/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf

WEIRD RIGHT?

No they failed because Dubya REQUIRED them to purchase $440 BILLION MBS's in 2002

Sure, because the Dems running Fannie and Freddie and the Dems in Congress were totally against pushing loans to less qualified borrowers. LOL!

Dems running F/F? You mean those captl;ists guys who Dubya had oversight of?

Lower lending standards started in late 2004 which caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble



JUNE 17TH 2004


Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, BARNEY Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf



In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."

REGULATOR POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN?

 

[jillian]

Yo retard even the formidable KGB couldn't control the blackmarket. Shut the fuck up.

Black market? lol

Ignorance you show on this site is hilarious Bubba

Tell me fucktard, what regulation would have prevented the collapse?

Would assigning a federal agent to each and everyone in the banking industry satisfy your socialistic inclinations?

.

you don't understand what glass-steagle did, do you?

here's what it would have prevented since you seem particularly confused. it would have kept banks from playing with the savings side of their business. and since you clearly don't understand what caused the crash... that would have printed the rise of garbage asset backed securities.

i hope that helps. i'm afraid i can't help your inability to articulate without a spew of profanity.

 

[Dad2three]

Yo retard even the formidable KGB couldn't control the blackmarket. Shut the fuck up.

If I remember correctly , Bush was a "compassionate Conservative". No politician can be elected nowadays unless they enhance the welfare state benefits.

You mean an ideologue who 'believed in' markets will self regulate so who could ignore FBI warnings that started in 2004 and pull 1,800+ agents out of white collar WHILE he pushed his 'home ownership society' ponzi scheme on US?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No they failed because Dubya REQUIRED them to purchase $440 BILLION MBS's in 2002, to feed his Banksters buddies coming ponzi scheme, THEN in 2004 upped their 'affordable housing goals from 50% to 56% and withdrew Clinton's s2000 rule that didn't count high cost (see subprime) loans in those totals!!!



June 17, 2004

Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


"(In 2000, Clinton ) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (BUSH), the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."

http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/files/references/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf

WEIRD RIGHT?

No they failed because Dubya REQUIRED them to purchase $440 BILLION MBS's in 2002

Sure, because the Dems running Fannie and Freddie and the Dems in Congress were totally against pushing loans to less qualified borrowers. LOL!

Dems running F/F? You mean those captl;ists guys who Dubya had oversight of?

Lower lending standards started in late 2004 which caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble



JUNE 17TH 2004


Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, BARNEY Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf



In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."

REGULATOR POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN?

Dems running F/F?

You need a list?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Black market? lol

Ignorance you show on this site is hilarious Bubba

Tell me fucktard, what regulation would have prevented the collapse?

Would assigning a federal agent to each and everyone in the banking industry satisfy your socialistic inclinations?

.

you don't understand what glass-steagle did, do you?

here's what it would have prevented since you seem particularly confused. it would have kept banks from playing with the savings side of their business. and since you clearly don't understand what caused the crash... that would have printed the rise of garbage asset backed securities.

i hope that helps. i'm afraid i can't help your inability to articulate without a spew of profanity.

it would have kept banks from playing with the savings side of their business.

It would not have prevented bad mortgages.
It would not have prevented the crisis.

 

[Dad2three]

No they failed because Dubya REQUIRED them to purchase $440 BILLION MBS's in 2002

Sure, because the Dems running Fannie and Freddie and the Dems in Congress were totally against pushing loans to less qualified borrowers. LOL!

Dems running F/F? You mean those captl;ists guys who Dubya had oversight of?

Lower lending standards started in late 2004 which caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble



JUNE 17TH 2004


Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, BARNEY Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf



In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."

REGULATOR POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, DO YOU HAVE A BRAIN?

Dems running F/F?

You need a list?

PLEASE and how them being 'Dem' versus crony capitalists' Bush loved so much?
'

 

[Dad2three]

Tell me fucktard, what regulation would have prevented the collapse?

Would assigning a federal agent to each and everyone in the banking industry satisfy your socialistic inclinations?

.

you don't understand what glass-steagle did, do you?

here's what it would have prevented since you seem particularly confused. it would have kept banks from playing with the savings side of their business. and since you clearly don't understand what caused the crash... that would have printed the rise of garbage asset backed securities.

i hope that helps. i'm afraid i can't help your inability to articulate without a spew of profanity.

it would have kept banks from playing with the savings side of their business.

It would not have prevented bad mortgages.
It would not have prevented the crisis.

ONLY thing stopping that would've been someone in charge of the Executive Branch 2001-2009 who actually believed Gov't can help and regulators are required!


Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street : NPR

“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times

Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

 

[Andylusion]

you don't understand what glass-steagle did, do you?

here's what it would have prevented since you seem particularly confused. it would have kept banks from playing with the savings side of their business. and since you clearly don't understand what caused the crash... that would have printed the rise of garbage asset backed securities.

i hope that helps. i'm afraid i can't help your inability to articulate without a spew of profanity.

But it would not have.

You say it would.... but there is no provision in Glass Steagall preventing that.

The only provisions in Glass Steagall separated Commercial, Retail, Investment and insurance.

Well.. most of the banks that failed... didn't do that.

Bear Stearns.... just an investment bank. There is nothing in Glass Steagall that would have affected Bear Stearns in any way.

Nor Lehman, Wachovia, Indymac, AIG and thousands of others.

Saying "this is what it's supposed to do", and rectifying that with reality, is not the same. There is no evidence that Glass Steagall would have prevented anything.

And again, if keeping "banks from playing with the savings side of their business" is so important to economic stability.... then why hasn't the rest of the world ever needed Glass Steagall?

So you can claim that without Glass Steagall it's the end of the world, but it's funny how the crash started in the US, and not throughout the rest of the world which has never, and still does not, have any such restrictions.

 

[zeke]

Tell me fucktard, what regulation would have prevented the collapse?

Would assigning a federal agent to each and everyone in the banking industry satisfy your socialistic inclinations?

.

you don't understand what glass-steagle did, do you?

here's what it would have prevented since you seem particularly confused. it would have kept banks from playing with the savings side of their business. and since you clearly don't understand what caused the crash... that would have printed the rise of garbage asset backed securities.

i hope that helps. i'm afraid i can't help your inability to articulate without a spew of profanity.

it would have kept banks from playing with the savings side of their business.

It would not have prevented bad mortgages.
It would not have prevented the crisis.[/QUOTE]


Yes, it would have prevented "bad" mortgages. You know why? Because first of all there has to be a source of money to fund the individual mortgage loan being written and second there had to be a secondary mortgage market created to sell the Mortgage Backed Securities that were now full of junk loans.

No traditional banks would have ever jeopardized their savings base making the types of loan being offered. No real mortgage banker would of even thought of offering some of the stupid loans that were being made.

Wall street DID provide a source of money to fund mortgage loans, bought and sold the mortgage backed securities and bought and sold derivatives to hedge their bets once they found out the securities were full of shit loans.

That would have never been possible before the repeal of Glass Steagal.

 

[zeke]

you don't understand what glass-steagle did, do you?

here's what it would have prevented since you seem particularly confused. it would have kept banks from playing with the savings side of their business. and since you clearly don't understand what caused the crash... that would have printed the rise of garbage asset backed securities.

i hope that helps. i'm afraid i can't help your inability to articulate without a spew of profanity.

But it would not have.

You say it would.... but there is no provision in Glass Steagall preventing that.

The only provisions in Glass Steagall separated Commercial, Retail, Investment and insurance.

Well.. most of the banks that failed... didn't do that.

Bear Stearns.... just an investment bank. There is nothing in Glass Steagall that would have affected Bear Stearns in any way.

Nor Lehman, Wachovia, Indymac, AIG and thousands of others.

Saying "this is what it's supposed to do", and rectifying that with reality, is not the same. There is no evidence that Glass Steagall would have prevented anything.

And again, if keeping "banks from playing with the savings side of their business" is so important to economic stability.... then why hasn't the rest of the world ever needed Glass Steagall?

So you can claim that without Glass Steagall it's the end of the world, but it's funny how the crash started in the US, and not throughout the rest of the world which has never, and still does not, have any such restrictions.

THE ONLY provision you say???????That was exactly the purpose. To keep the risky side of INVESTING AWAY from the staid, old fashioned, safe, secure MORTGAGE lending arena.

Jesus you are dense.

 

[Dad2three]

you don't understand what glass-steagle did, do you?

here's what it would have prevented since you seem particularly confused. it would have kept banks from playing with the savings side of their business. and since you clearly don't understand what caused the crash... that would have printed the rise of garbage asset backed securities.

i hope that helps. i'm afraid i can't help your inability to articulate without a spew of profanity.

But it would not have.

You say it would.... but there is no provision in Glass Steagall preventing that.

The only provisions in Glass Steagall separated Commercial, Retail, Investment and insurance.

Well.. most of the banks that failed... didn't do that.

Bear Stearns.... just an investment bank. There is nothing in Glass Steagall that would have affected Bear Stearns in any way.

Nor Lehman, Wachovia, Indymac, AIG and thousands of others.

Saying "this is what it's supposed to do", and rectifying that with reality, is not the same. There is no evidence that Glass Steagall would have prevented anything.

And again, if keeping "banks from playing with the savings side of their business" is so important to economic stability.... then why hasn't the rest of the world ever needed Glass Steagall?

So you can claim that without Glass Steagall it's the end of the world, but it's funny how the crash started in the US, and not throughout the rest of the world which has never, and still does not, have any such restrictions.

WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. Dozens of nations