Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
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. T
The repeal allowed these investment banks to take on even greater risks without the same level of regulation that commercial banks had before.
Investment banks didn't have the same regulation under Glass-Steagall as commercial banks.
Where’s your evidence that these firms wouldn’t have collapsed without the deregulation that allowed them to gamble on risky financial products?
Bear Stearns and Lehman were always allowed to own mortgages.