I’m mixed on this.
Glass Steagell put major US banks at a distinct advantage against other global banking interests.
However we can’t afford a bailout of a BNY Mellon, Chase, BOA etc.
I admit, I don’t know enough to say, with certainty, if it’s a good thing or bad thing.
I do know that our global financial ability to compete would be hindered.
Who is in favor of Banker Gangsters and Derivatives twice removed?
Definitely a good idea to split up investment banking, which is inherently risky, from any connection to savings and checking accounts (government insured deposits).
Repeal of G-S by Clinton directly led to the banking crisis of 2008.
interesting how AP wrote this one up
if they were concerned with the viability and health of the USA banking system including the safety of our deposits and also to lessen the risk to the government’s (taxpayers’) deposit insurance programs.......the AP would have favored this proposal outright.
but if, as it seems, they don’t favor it... why? well, there’s only one source for opposition to reinstituting Glass Stiegle... the major NY banks ... who enjoy being able to, in effect (if not legimately) are able now to speculate/invest big-time with our deposits (while letting the taxpayers take the risk of any significant failures or losses)
just sayin....
See, see! Trump’s turning Left! Write in Jeb!
This is great! While the MSM is distracted, Trump is getting it done.
I guess it shouldn’t surprise us that the ‘AP Business Writer’ is absolutely clueless about how this would have prevented the 08 crisis. (Hint...something called Mortgage Backed Securities would never have been a thing, thus no bundling, no moral hazard, no AIG failure, and finally no damn crisis in the first place.)
I’m surprised this went into the platform and I wasn’t really sure where Trump stood on reinstating Glass-Steagall. This is excellent news.
Oh, and if it ‘hurts us globally’ to be the only one with financially sound banks...well, gee, I guess that’s just too bad. Somehow, I think we’ll survive.
Not a bad idea but the Sander/Warren supports aren’t going to vote Republican because of this.
Because they don’t even know what it means
AP as normal is almost putrid
I am suspicious that government regulation would improve the security of banks.
it’s about damned time, hopefully it will happen.
Glass Steagall prevented the concept of too big to fail. It was a good thing. Removing it was the banksters dream and laid the groundwork for the subprime crash where the investment side of banks were pushing the consumer side to give out crap loans they knew could never be serviced.
And this also opened the door for the haircut concept. Investment banking was never considered too big to fail before this.
If too big too fail means they are too big to exist. Break them up.
Sorry if it offends some here, but I WILL NEVER support the demands of big bankers.
THEY GAVE US THE 2008 MELTDOWN, and yes, I know the excuses, like they had to loan money to deadbeats - but did they complain about it? Did they mention it? Is there a single article from the big bankers saying this would be a disaster? NOPE! They were raking in the bucks - they knew it would all crash, but the money was simply TOO GOOD.
It's time.
Anything we can do to keep the banks from growing more powerful than the government is a good thing. Many politicians have said that the banking interests control Washington.
Also, he says a Philadelphia lawyer can't figure out what is in Dodd-Frank or how to implement it.
The responses to this proposal in this thread are what I would have read on DU in ‘12
So called conservatives on FR are endorsing major gov’t interference into how banks run their businesses.
Put this law back on the books. Repealing it, combined with the reauthorizing and strengthening the Community Reinvestment Act, led directly to the massive housing bubble that nearly collapsed the world economy in 2008...
...and the Philanderer-in-Chief did both of them.