Glass-Steagall

[Nickman]

Should we reinstate and enforce Glass-Steagall? Senator Warren makes some very good points on this subject. Prior to the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933 the banks crashed about every 15 years on average. After the act passed, there were zero large crashes in large banks until the early 80s when we bagan to deregulate the banks. Anyone who is not familiar with the act, it keeps banks from investing and gambling in he market with depositors money. All the risk is on the depositors. You put in 20,000 in savings and the bank goes under....you are out of luck. Bill Clinton ended the last of Glass-Steagall before he left office, and in 2008 we saw the biggest crash since the depression.

Elizabeth Warren is trying to get these regulations back into the banks. Should we want Glass-Steagall to be reinstated? I think so. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[WinePusher]

Should we reinstate and enforce Glass-Steagall? Senator Warren makes some very good points on this subject. Prior to the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933 the banks crashed about every 15 years on average. After the act passed, there were zero large crashes in large banks until the early 80s when we bagan to deregulate the banks. Anyone who is not familiar with the act, it keeps banks from investing and gambling in he market with depositors money. All the risk is on the depositors. You put in 20,000 in savings and the bank goes under....you are out of luck. Bill Clinton ended the last of Glass-Steagall before he left office, and in 2008 we saw the biggest crash since the depression.

Elizabeth Warren is trying to get these regulations back into the banks. Should we want Glass-Steagall to be reinstated? I think so. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Elizabeth Warren, the wannabe Native American, never makes any good points. It's a shame that this women is even in the senate.

First of all, your definition of glass steagall is completely wrong. Banks have always gamble in the market with depositors money. This is the basis for our fractional reserve banking system. Banks only keep about 10% of your deposits on hand, and they take the other 90% and turn them into loans. When you go to the bank and take out a loan, where do you think the money comes from? The money is taken from depositors.

Second of all, the banking system is the most overregulated industry in America. This is troubling in and of itself. There are real economic consequences of excessive governmental regulations, so the last thing we should be doing is trying to introduce more regulations. Rather, we should be trying to repeal the regulations that already exist.

Third of all, glass steagall would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the 2008 crash. Elizabeth Warren apparently knows nothing about the recession if she believes glass steagall would have made a difference. The question is why banks were engaging in subprime lending and giving out loans to unqualified borrowers. And the answer is because a mixture of government regulations forced banks to do so. The expansion of the money supply during the early 2000's under Alan Greenspan artificially caused interest rates to decline, which incentive banks to lend more. In addition, banks were pressured to lend to poor people via the Community Reinvestment Act and banks were shielded from any risks because the loans they made were securitized by government agencies like Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and private investment banks on Wallstreet.

[Goat]

Senator Warran, who is much more educated and experienced about banking than anybody on this forum, responds to reporters about it... She makes some very good points.


[youtube][/youtube]

[WinePusher]

Senator Warran, who is much more educated and experienced about banking than anybody on this forum, responds to reporters about it... She makes some very good points.

What are those points? Are you smart/articulate enough to explain why the points Elizabeth Warren makes are 'good points?' Because if you haven't noticed this is a debate forum, not a 'post youtube videos' forum.

[Goat]

Senator Warran, who is much more educated and experienced about banking than anybody on this forum, responds to reporters about it... She makes some very good points.

What are those points? Are you smart/articulate enough to explain why the points Elizabeth Warren makes are 'good points?' Because if you haven't noticed this is a debate forum, not a 'post youtube videos' forum.

You mean, that before the glass steagall, banks went through a regular bust/boom cycle about every 15 years from 1787 to 1933, and when the act was made law, there wasn't any major bank failing for over 50 years?? You mean, little points like that? And, after the act was repealed, we had a major bank fail within 10 years? You mean, things like that??? OR, how about the guy who pushed to repeal the act admitting he was wrong?? That isn't a good point??

[Dantalion]

Senator Warran, who is much more educated and experienced about banking than anybody on this forum, responds to reporters about it... She makes some very good points.

What are those points? Are you smart/articulate enough to explain why the points Elizabeth Warren makes are 'good points?' Because if you haven't noticed this is a debate forum, not a 'post youtube videos' forum.

Chill it with the hostility ?
The vitriol in the apologetic forums is nothing compared to what I regularly read here.
Debate with an American about his politics and suddenly the debate becomes gladiatorial death match where other viewpoints are labeled communist or liberal propaganda, which, as an European not subscribing to your ridiculous 2party system is both hilarious and terrifying to behold.

It's like I'm landing on another planet with 2 species, Zorks and Sporks, and after getting to know the two, anything I say to a Zork that doesn't agree with his position makes me a filthy Spork and vice versa.

It's quite the experience lol

[micatala]

Should we reinstate and enforce Glass-Steagall? Senator Warren makes some very good points on this subject. Prior to the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933 the banks crashed about every 15 years on average. After the act passed, there were zero large crashes in large banks until the early 80s when we bagan to deregulate the banks. Anyone who is not familiar with the act, it keeps banks from investing and gambling in he market with depositors money. All the risk is on the depositors. You put in 20,000 in savings and the bank goes under....you are out of luck. Bill Clinton ended the last of Glass-Steagall before he left office, and in 2008 we saw the biggest crash since the depression.

Elizabeth Warren is trying to get these regulations back into the banks. Should we want Glass-Steagall to be reinstated? I think so. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Elizabeth Warren, the wannabe Native American,

Thank you for the gratuitous and pointless smear.

never makes any good points.

An exceedingly broad, and as yet, entirely unsubstantiated claim. In fact, several good points have already been provided in this thread.

It's a shame that this women is even in the senate.

You are welcome to your opinion.

First of all, your definition of glass steagall is completely wrong. Banks have always gamble in the market with depositors money. This is the basis for our fractional reserve banking system. Banks only keep about 10% of your deposits on hand, and they take the other 90% and turn them into loans. When you go to the bank and take out a loan, where do you think the money comes from? The money is taken from depositors.

It may not be purposeful, but you are practicing equivocation here by ignoring that some loans (e.g. mortgages) are typically a lot less risky than some of the investments that banks got into in recent years. I am quite sure that Senator Warren and most of the rest of us understand that banks typically only have a small percentage of deposits on hand. For you to suggest she doesn't understand this is rather ridiculous.

Second of all, the banking system is the most overregulated industry in America.

This may perhaps be true, but certainly is irrelevant to your claims about Glass-Steagall and Senator Warren. You seem to be saying that since banks are highly regulated, any additional regulation is automatically a bad thing. Not necessarily.

This is troubling in and of itself. There are real economic consequences of excessive governmental regulations, so the last thing we should be doing is trying to introduce more regulations. Rather, we should be trying to repeal the regulations that already exist.

Third of all, glass steagall would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the 2008 crash. Elizabeth Warren apparently knows nothing about the recession if she believes glass steagall would have made a difference.

Straw man. Senator Warren in fact is on record as saying Glass-Steagall would not have, all by itself, prevented the 2008 crisis. She understands there were other factors involved. Still, that does not mean reimplementing the law is a bad idea.

The question is why banks were engaging in subprime lending and giving out loans to unqualified borrowers. And the answer is because a mixture of government regulations forced banks to do so.

Not sure I am following you here. How is "allowing banks to engage in this business" or even "encouraging" the same as "forcing" them?

The expansion of the money supply during the early 2000's under Alan Greenspan artificially caused interest rates to decline, which incentive banks to lend more. In addition, banks were pressured to lend to poor people via the Community Reinvestment Act and banks were shielded from any risks because the loans they made were securitized by government agencies like Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and private investment banks on Wallstreet.

There are reasonable points here, but again, this does not mean Glass-Steagall is a bad idea, nor that Senator Warren is wrong or does not know what she is talking about. You act as if Warren is not aware of these factors as well.

[WinePusher]

Elizabeth Warren, the wannabe Native American,

Thank you for the gratuitous and pointless smear.

It's the truth. I have the same amount of disdain for this fraudulent woman as you probably have for somebody like Rush Limbaugh.

I'll get back to the rest of your post later on in the day.

[otseng]

I have the same amount of disdain for this fraudulent woman as you probably have for somebody like Rush Limbaugh.

Moderator Warning


Please refrain from making any negative comments about people, even those outside the forum.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[WinePusher]

You mean, that before the glass steagall, banks went through a regular bust/boom cycle about every 15 years from 1787 to 1933, and when the act was made law, there wasn't any major bank failing for over 50 years?? You mean, little points like that? And, after the act was repealed, we had a major bank fail within 10 years? You mean, things like that??? OR, how about the guy who pushed to repeal the act admitting he was wrong?? That isn't a good point??

Those are all terrible points. The banking system did collapse prior to the implementation of glass-steagall, that much is true. However, the reason why the banking system failed had nothing to do with anything in glass steagall.

During the period you mention, 1787-1929 we had very little government intervention when the economy contracted. And for that reason, recessions and contractions were short lived, they didn't last that long. When the stock market crashed in 1929 the economy would have recovered very quickly had it not been for government intervention. The reason why the recession turned into a decade long depression was because the government interfered and screwed up normal market processes. Examples would include: the Glass-Steagall act, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, the New Deal, the David-Bacon act, etc.

Also, commercial banks always take risks with their depositors money. This is how the banking system works in America. Bad banks who make bad decisions will suffer losses and die out from the market, and a new bank will take its place. So, a bank failure should not be seen as a bad thing. It should be seen as a good thing because it shows that the Capitalism is functioning properly.