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.
Name one.
From what I’ve read, it prohibits commercial banking from making poor or risky investments and puts them out of the business of fundraising through buying and selling of securities.
I am willing to be corrected, but I believe it would be a tectonic shift in our banking policy and would strengthen our markets. This could be their strategy for getting us out of the “propped up” market without a colossal collapse.
Thoughtful comment. The problem is FDIC and FSLIC. As long as the public is insuring deposits, the mixing of banking banking and investment banking is problematic.
The banks take the profits and the taxpayer takes the losses.
I too have mixed feelings. On the one hand I favor free enterprise as far as reasonably possible. But I am not an economic anarchist and these mega banks represent a threat to the economic security of the country. They are so large and powerful that they are effectively above the law and government regulation. Further, we can’t afford to bail them out again. Nor should we have to.
I think we basically have two choices. Either we reinstate Glass Steagle, or we invoke the long moribund anti-trust laws and break up the giant banks. Glass Steagle is probably easier and less likely to involve decades long litigation since it has already been upheld in the courts.