home

Running Against Government

In a post yesterday, I argued that the current economic crisis is a result of the implementation of the Republican ideology of getting the government out of the markets and out of the economy. I questioned if Republicans would oppose government intervention and help. I argued that if Republicans were true to their ideology, they would argue that the current Wall Street meltdown is merely a function of the market at work and that the weeding of inefficiency through the failure of companies like Lehman Brothers and AIG would make us stronger. I must give the John McCain campaign credit. They are running an ad that argues against government. More . . .

It is interesting that McCain uses the imagery of a big government casting a shadow on the country. It is painfully clear that if we had had a big government casting a shadow on Wall Street shenanigans, the current crisis would not have happened. In January, Barney Frank wrote a prescient article on the ideological battle about governance at the heart of this election. He also participated in a roundtable with Mark Green where he made some great points:

GREEN Q: Is the mortgage-housing-banking crisis just the story of an economic bubble that's bursting, which happens every so often, or has this Administration's actions or inactions helped create this crisis?

FRANK: "Oh it's absolutely what you just said...Here is the fundamental point. Until maybe twenty years ago most mortgage loans were made by a regulated bank or credit union -- you got the loan from that entity and you paid them back. Then the financial geniuses came up with securitization. Now that has a lot of advantages because it can make your money move quicker. But basically what it says is, 'I will lend you the money, but I will than sell the right to collect from you to other people. And since I no longer am dependent on your repayment because I already made my money by selling your loan, it turns out people are less careful about it.'

It's really been a test of regulation...and conscious decision brought by Alan Greenspan, who is the arch de-regulator. Because in 1994, not coincidently the last time the Democrats had a congressional majority before this year, a bill was passed that was called the Home Owner Equity Protection Act, that said to the Federal Reserve, 'Look, we know have loans being made by non-regulated entities so please pass some rules. We give you the statutory authority to pass the rules to contain their activity and make it more responsible'. Alan Greenspan said, 'oh no, that's interfering with the market, I can't do that.' He didn't do it; that's where the crisis came. Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, to his credit, on Monday of this week finally used that authority, but if Greenspan had done 10 years ago what Bernanke did on Monday, we wouldn't be in nearly as bad as a situation."

. . . GREEN Q: In the historic tug-of-rope between free market Republicans and pro-regulation Democrats, could this be a moment that exposes the emptiness of free-market Republicans and boosts the arguments of pro-regulation Democrats?

FRANK: "You're absolutely right; it is almost comparable to the Depression. Look, a few years ago, a Republican appointee to the Securities Exchange Commission, Bill Donaldson, ordered hedge funds to simply register with the SEC. What a commotion! Oh, this was the end of the Earth! And the industry was actually able, in court, to overturn the order. The new SEC chair said 'Well, we're not going to do that again.' When I became Chairman a year and a half ago, it was 'you better deregulate or we're all going to Europe.' Last week, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, two Bush appointees, came before the committee I chair and said 'you know what, we better charter those hedge funds.' There is now a consensus that we have to give the Federal Reserve a great deal more authority over investment banks and hedge funds. So yes, this is a recession caused by structural problems that are the result of inadequate regulation. First, they allowed a lot of mortgage loans to be made that shouldn't have been made. Second, they allowed these various financial institutions that are unsupervised to sell each other these mortgage loans so that the poison was spread throughout the financial system."

This is a debate that Democrats, like Barney Frank has for years now, relish. Let's let McCain run on the extreme Republican ideology enacted by the Bush Administration. Let McCain and Republicans own their failures and tell the American People that is the right way to go.

Like Bill Clinton, I am confident the American People will say, thanks, but no thanks.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< The Bush-McCain Social Security Privatization Plan | McCain's Spain Gaffe: Spanish Press Abuzz >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The Irony of the Ad is... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by santarita on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:20:19 AM EST
    With the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and loan to AIG, the fears expressed about big government and more taxes have come to fruition due to the lax oversight of a Republican Congress and a Republican Administration.  

    I hope that the inevitable regulations that come out of this debacle are appropriate and not simply a show of force for public consumption.  

    And a systemic issue needs to be addressed:  How do you insulate the regulator from political forces that would compromise its mission?

    I blame them all (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Fitz on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:32:49 PM EST
    Only two Democrats and two Republicans voted against the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Barney Frank wasn't one of them, he voted Yea. This law is what enabled the unregulated growth in credit default swaps which is an enormous problem right now. There were approx. $900 billion in outstanding credit default swaps in 2001, there are now around $45.5 Trillion outstanding.  

    Republicans and Democrats created this monster with Alan Greenspan cheering them on. Money and greed rules both parties, I hold them all to blame.

    What Created this Monster

    A clarification (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Fitz on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:37:11 PM EST
    The Commodity Futures Modernization Act was never signed into law on it's own it was incorporated by reference into H.R. 4577, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001.


    Parent
    BT, I'm not asking to be convinced (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Green26 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:53:51 PM EST
    of anything. I'm asking if there is any evidence or good articles providing evidence that regulation (and what regulation) would have prevented this situation.

    I'd like to learn something, if there is something to be called to our attention.

    Biden's saying the financial crisis was caused by tax cuts is ridiculous and doesn't do it for me.

    Dems saying the crisis was caused by Bush or the repubs or McCain doesn't do it for me. Where's the evidence of any of that?

    Let's have some discussion of all the bills introduced by dems or repubs in Congress that would have prevented this crisis. It was a dem-controlled Congress the last couple years. Why didn't they do something? My guess is that there weren't any such bills, but I don't know that.

    Clinton signed the bill eliminating the remnants of Glass Steagall. Bush can't be blamed for that.

    Sounds like a good research project ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by santarita on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 03:28:58 PM EST
    There are lots of articles about this mess.  Check out today's NYTimes for a starter.  Then try Fortune magazine.  Wall Street Journal.  Financial Times.  Etc...

    Parent
    Why the Dems haven't been more helpful... (none / 0) (#60)
    by dutchfox on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:22:14 PM EST
    From Undernews: Why the Democrats haven't been more helpful in the fiscal crisis
    The Democrats seem slightly befuddled how to react to the current fiscal crisis. One reason is that they helped to cause it. Starting with the Clinton administration, there was a conscious effort by Democrats  to cozy up to Wall Street and to this day Barack Obama is being advised by those with deep involvement in the policies and practices that led to the current disaster. You can't well complain about Bush's Treasury Secretary having been with Goldman Sachs, when Clinton's was as well and now the guy has Obama's ear. And during the period liberals have largely looked the other way as the economic principles of the New Deal, Fair Deal and Great Society were steadily unraveled.



    Parent
    Thanks, this is a great review of hstory (none / 0) (#61)
    by desertdude on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 01:04:15 PM EST
    They must know that this ad (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:42:44 AM EST
    is entirely wrong for the political environment. The Politico speculates that it isn't going to run anywhere, but I hope they're wrong.

    Oh, and Barney Frank rocks.

    Barney Frank rocks? (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by rennies on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:52:26 PM EST
    In 2005, McCain co-sponsored S.190 - The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act, which would have reformed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    That bill died in comittee because Democrats clamored that reforming those two GSEs would make it harder for lower-income Americans to buy a house. (Remember, this was 2005, they hey-day of the housing bubble.)

    Barney Frank, the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, had this to say:
    `'These two entities--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'

    Let's also remember that the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act (repealing the 1933 Glass-Steagull Act) was passed in the Senate by 90-8-1. How many Democrats were in the Senate in 1999?

    I don't understand why Democrats are being given a pass in responsibility for the meltdown.

    Disclosure: I am a life-long yellowdog Democrat who will be voting for Cynthia McKinney.

    Parent

    But will all that hackable voting machinery... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:53:39 AM EST
    ...also say thanks, but no thanks?

    I agree on the tactic, but this election, sadly and infuriatingly, is going to turn on much more than the people running for office.  We need to wake up to this.  And fast.  You think it was nasty when there was a chance Gore or Kerry might win, imagine what Barack Hussein Obama is going to be faced with in terms of election fraud and Republican attempts to steal, hack, purge this election.

    It's going to be ugly beyond anything we have ever seen.  If not, I will eat my words.  By hand.  

    An example from FLORIDA (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:03:14 AM EST
    Bev Harris? (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:06:15 AM EST
    pfffft.

    Parent
    Yes, those darned grannies... (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:32:19 PM EST
    ...doing the hard work of looking into this sh*t.

    Parent
    And....... (none / 0) (#5)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:08:06 AM EST
    ....Don't forget who's still ensconsed in the catbird seat with the U.S. Military joysick in his hand?

    October surprise anyone?

    Parent

    A hanging curve over the plate (none / 0) (#6)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:08:21 AM EST
    and the way to hit it out of the park is to point out to voters that McCain has literally no recipe for dealing with the economy other than the tired old Republican mantra that tax cuts fix everything.  He wants to continue the exact same policies that got us into this mess.

    Unfortunately.. (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:13:55 AM EST
    ..The tax cuts did do what they were supposed to do, but the out of controll, out of mind spending increases, enthusiastically voted in by a bipartisan Congress had a little something to do with it.

    Parent
    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:22:43 AM EST
    I'm not a big believer in the claim that the tax cuts worked.  What you're saying sounds a little too much like Republican dogma to me.

    Parent
    Didn't know (none / 0) (#14)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:30:46 AM EST
    that facts were Republican dogma.

    Maybe some facts in opposition, rather than tired pejoratives would clear it up for all of us.

    Parent

    Your assertion that the Bush tax cuts (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Pegasus on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:50:44 AM EST
    "did what they were supposed to do" is hardly an inarguable fact in its own right.  So I'm not sure why you are lecturing others about providing facts.

    Parent
    Fine (none / 0) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:56:22 PM EST
    if it's argueable, then argue it.

    "So I'm not sure why you are lecturing others about providing facts."

    Because I stated an opinion relevant to the topic, he made a pesonal slur against me.

    Was that hard?

    Parent

    You're stating political boilerplate (none / 0) (#45)
    by Pegasus on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:04:12 PM EST
    on a generally political site, and he came back with boilerplate from the other side.

    Or put it this way: you don't get to throw out an opinion, sans supporting evidence, and then hold others to a higher standard.  So lighten up.

    Parent

    For starters (none / 0) (#26)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:33:21 PM EST
    our policy was hardly set by a "bipartisan Congress" for the last eight years.  A "bipartisan Congress" didn't pass the Medicare drug benefit.  A "bipartisan Congress" didn't launch and prosecute a trillion-dollar war, Bush did.  These are his policies.

    We always have colossal deficits under Republican presidents and we always hear the same thing - "Hey, it's not our fault for cutting taxes, it's the fault of Congress for spending so much money."  That's why I call it Republican dogma, it's a totally disingenuous argument.  Show me all the balanced budgets Bush has submitted and I'll think about blaming Congress for the deficit.

    Parent

    It's called a vote (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:12:28 PM EST
    Bush didn't implement the Medicare bill by fiat; the Democrats voted for it.

    Bush probably would have gone to war in Iraq regardless of Congress, but something like 37 Democrats voted to give him the authority to do so.

    Why are we arguing? Bush and the Republicans are shmucks, and much, much more, but the damage he spearheaded was made much easier by a compliant, cowardly Democratic minority.


    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#36)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:32:52 PM EST
    Tom DeLay held the Medicare vote open for hours after it should have been gaveled, threatening recalcitrant Republicans with dire consequences to get them to flip their votes.  It was the farthest thing from a bipartisan endeavor I can imagine.

    I am as disappointed in the Congressional Democrats as the next guy, but I don't understand why you want to blame them for things they opposed.

    Parent

    Please tell me (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by rennies on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:56:17 PM EST
    what Obama's recipe is? Have I missed it?

    Note:Bloomberg reports today: "The Democratic-controlled Congress, acknowledging that it isn't equipped to lead the way to a solution for the financial crisis and can't agree on a path to follow, is likely to just get out of the way. . . .
    Lawmakers say they are unlikely to take action before, or to delay, their planned adjournments -- Sept. 26 for the House of Representatives, a week later for the Senate. While they haven't ruled out returning after the Nov. 4 elections, they would rather wait until next year unless Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who are leading efforts to contain the crisis, call for help.
    One reason, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday, is that ``no one knows what to do'' at the moment. . . .
    Pelosi defended the decision of Congress to adjourn. Lawmakers can always be recalled to Washington ``if there is a need to do so,'' she told reporters yesterday. In the meantime, House and Senate committees will hold hearings and the financial crisis will be studied by Congress, she said. ``Our work will continue even if we are not still on the floor,'' she said."

    http://tinyurl.com/4paua2

    Parent

    What's the evidence that more government (none / 0) (#7)
    by Green26 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:13:04 AM EST
    regulation would have prevented the current situation?

    Are there good articles discussing what regulation would have prevented this situation?

    Are there articles or whatever discussing how specific proposed legislation (not adopted) could, would or might have prevented this situation?

    It is not helpful to me to read broad statements indicating that more regulation would have prevented this situation.

    At least (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:16:22 AM EST
    the housing portion of the disaster, the Republicans are saying it was the Democrats who insisted that lenders lower their standards for lending to minorities that started the ball rolling.

    Parent
    Link. . . (none / 0) (#15)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:31:14 AM EST
    to an actual Republican saying that?  It sounds like your putting it in their mouths to avoid the opprobrium that natural results from that kind of sentiment.

    Parent
    For one (none / 0) (#17)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:37:22 AM EST
    Limbaugh, yesterday.

    And please, my first vote was for Humphrey, and every one since a proud "D."

    Let's not go there, o.k?

    Parent

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:17:54 AM EST
    You're right. There is likely no evidence that will convince you.

    You think McCain will take up your argument?

    Parent

    Doubt it........ (none / 0) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:33:55 AM EST
    Too touchy, too sensistive.

    the subject, not you

    Parent

    For starters, google FASB 140 and (none / 0) (#13)
    by santarita on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:26:03 AM EST
    check out Jim Cramer's Mad Money from September 17th.  Look at the discussions of why the Fed acted when it did with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Look at existing capital and liquidity requirements.  Look at conflicts of interest.  

    Parent
    Zat So? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:58:58 AM EST

    In a post yesterday, I argued that the current economic crisis is a result of the implementation of the Republican ideology of getting the government out of the markets and out of the economy.

    Ideologies don't get implemented, regulations do.  

    To what extent do you think the new mark to market regulations in SarBox as a result of Enron contributed to or ameliorated the current mess?  It would seem on its face that mark to market regulation is a contributor to the current problem.  

    Market value the issue (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by DaleA on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:54:07 PM EST
    It is not the rule that is the problem; it is the actual market price. Recognizing that the value carried on the books is no longer realizable would have happened whether or not the mark to market rule was in effect.

    Parent
    Perhaps... (none / 0) (#24)
    by santarita on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:27:13 PM EST
    if the accounting rules had changed much earlier the current crisis wouldn't have happened.  I believe that the 'mark-to-market" rule that you are talking about was implemented only one year ago.   And arguably it was a belated attempt to provide some consistency in an important sector of the market.   Perhaps the day of reckoning should have been delayed so that there could be a more orderly implementation.  

    I read the WSJ article on which this argument is based.  I agree with much of it.  However, my question is:  Do you think that a standard for determining the fair value of financial and investment instruments is necessary?  Or to put it another way:  what do you have against meaningful disclosure?

    And technically, I do not believe that the "mark-to-market" rule was required by SOX.  It was a FASB rule which was probably influenced by the accounting issues uncovered in Enron.    

    Parent

    The point is (none / 0) (#47)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:21:06 PM EST

    The point is that regulation can make matters worse as well as better.  The assertion that it was the absence regulation that made regulated corporations go toes up, is only that.  Mere assertion.

    Perhaps the day of reckoning should have been delayed so that there could be a more orderly implementation.

    This is another way of saying that at the very least the implementation of the regulation was problematic.  

    Good regulation is good.  Bad regulation is bad.  The issue is that political bodies are only good at telling what is politically popular or sounds good on the surface.  What else explains Fan and Fred taking no money down mortagages?


    Parent

    You are correct in that... (none / 0) (#50)
    by santarita on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 03:21:07 PM EST
    no one can know for sure what would have happened if the accounting standards had been changed earlier.  Of course, no one can be sure whether or not the situation would have been made worse if the accounting standards had not been changed when they were.

    There's little doubt that over-regulation is as bad as under-regulation.  It is hard to strike the appropriate balance.  Political bodies should be tasked with making appropriate regulations.  If they aren't doing their jobs, then  we need to find some new representatives.

    Parent

    Clinton the Republican? (none / 0) (#20)
    by desertdude on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:11:21 PM EST
    Maybe the last "Republican" president should have had second thoughts before repealing Glass-Steagall? Just a thought....

    ------------------------------

    from Wikipedia:

    On November 12, 1999, President William J. Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. One of the effects of the repeal was to allow commercial and investment banks to consolidate. Some economists have criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.[8][9]

    The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities. Citigroup played a major part in the repeal. Then called Citicorp, the company merged with Travelers Insurance company the year before using loopholes in Glass-Steagall that allowed for temporary exemptions. With lobbying led by Roger Levy, the "finance, insurance and real estate industries together are regularly the largest campaign contributors and biggest spenders on lobbying of all business sectors [in 1999]. They laid out more than $200 million for lobbying in 1998, according to the Center for Responsive Politics..." These industries succeeded in their two decades long effort to repeal the act.[10]

    The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980's. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.

    The argument for preserving Glass-Steagall (as written in 1987):

    1. Conflicts of interest characterize the granting of credit - lending - and the use of credit - investing - by the same entity, which led to abuses that originally produced the Act

    2. Depository institutions possess enormous financial power, by virtue of their control of other people's money; its extent must be limited to ensure soundness and competition in the market for funds, whether loans or investments.

    3. Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses.

    4. Depository institutions are supposed to be managed to limit risk. Their managers thus may not be conditioned to operate prudently in more speculative securities businesses. An example is the crash of real estate investment trusts sponsored by bank holding companies (in the 1970s and 1980s).


    Blaming Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:17:20 PM EST
    isn't gonna work this time...

    If the republicans thought it was so bad why didn't they do anything in their 6 years of having the white house, and the house and senate to fix it?

    Also BTD has an interesting post from the other day which explains a reason repealing Glass-Steagall did NOT cause this crisis.  Personally, I don't really have an opinion on it, since I don't really understand it.

    BUT, regardless if you are right or not, I don't think the average voter is gonna buy that the economic collapse is really all Clinton's fault.  That may have worked with Sept. 11th, but this is 8 years later...

    Parent

    all are to blame (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by desertdude on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:19:38 PM EST
    Yes, I think youre right, Just pointing out no particular party is blameless in the mess.

    Parent
    People Who Focus on Clinton's... (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by santarita on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:41:17 PM EST
    signing of the repeal of Glass-Steagull should ask themselves what do they think would have happened when Bush was elected with a compliant Republican Congress.

    Parent
    what would have happened? (none / 0) (#34)
    by desertdude on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:23:47 PM EST
    Of course, the same thing would have happened.

    But remember As Michael Moore once stated, "Looking back on the past eight years, I'd have to say that Bill Clinton is perhaps the best Republican president we've had since Abraham Lincoln."

    Parent

    Other than being a clever bon mot... (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by santarita on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:00:08 PM EST
    what  is the relevance of the quote to the discussion of the role of government regulations?

    Parent
    relevance (none / 0) (#54)
    by desertdude on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 04:16:43 PM EST
    Merely an attempt at humor and to state my opinion that either party in power would have ennacted the repeal.

    Parent
    So much pain.... (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:49:22 PM EST
    So many to blame.

    It's true; no one thing did it, but so many actions were operating at the edge of the envelope that it only took a little wiff to blow it all down.

    You can start with Greenspan. Remember how nice he played with Clinton and Reuben? Then when Bush took over, he immediately flipped and contradicted his own words and philosophies re: massive tax cuts, and (not for political expediency, no, no, no) went against the smart people's admonition that the cuts were the absolute wrong way to go.

    Also, little things like lightening the regs. on short selling.....the uptick rule.
    I've heard, and it makes some sense, that changing from fractions to decimals also didn't help. At least using fractions put some mini-brakes on the speed of transactions.

    And, of course, a few thousand more, but the one that stands out the most, and while I have to hold back using extreme language; It was the Greed, stupid. Something HAS TO BE DONE about the obscene, self-serving, counterproductive, upper-management compensation cartel system we have. I hope everyone agrees on that.


    Parent

    Interestingly,,, (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by santarita on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:39:24 PM EST
    your Wikipedia citation ends with the 1987 case for preserving Glass-Steagull and not with the 1987 case against Glass-Steagull.

    Pointing the finger at the repeal of Glass-Steagull as the cause of what is going now in the financial markets is a simplistic analysis, at best.  An argument could be made that allowing high regulated institutions to engage in business that had been the sole province of less regulated (or virtually unregulated) entities (like insurance companies) prevented a more serious collapse.

    But, sure, the repeal of Glass-Steagull, was probably a contributing factor but not the "but-for" factor.  If the repeal of Glass-Steagull had taken place and there had been appropriate regulations and there had been appropriate enforcement of those regs and there had been appropriate oversight by Congress and there had been realistic market-driven interest rates, and there had not been fraud and there had not been Boards of Directors that had permitted risky practices, maybe we wouldn't have these problems.

    Parent

    simplistic (none / 0) (#31)
    by desertdude on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:50:17 PM EST
    > Pointing the finger at the repeal of Glass-Steagull as the cause of what is going now in the financial markets is a simplistic analysis, at best.

    Simplistic? ... almost certainly. But, it had people's head shaking at the time. It was just one part of the rush into deregulation in the 90's.

    Some dead on gallows humor from the Brits:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC31Oudc5Bg

    Parent

    Many props (none / 0) (#46)
    by rennies on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:07:57 PM EST
    for this hilarious (and devastating) video.

    Parent
    You can put (none / 0) (#23)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:22:06 PM EST
    A.I.G. down as a victim of that action. (at least a contributing factor)

    I know it sounds funny labeling A.I.G. a "victim" as they were a leading proponent of repealing  G/S.....but you know what I meant.


    Parent

    Please Explain how AIG was... (none / 0) (#29)
    by santarita on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:42:41 PM EST
    a "victim" of the repeal of Glass-Steagull.

    Parent
    sarcasm (none / 0) (#38)
    by desertdude on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:49:14 PM EST
    I sensed just a bit of humor and sarcasm in the statement as I am presuming AIG would have been for the repeal of G/S. That same act may have contributed the AIG's bailout.

    Parent
    Well, I'll have to research this, but I don't (none / 0) (#44)
    by santarita on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:03:21 PM EST
    believe that AIG would have favored the repeal of Glass-Steagull because the repeal increased the competition and attempted to lay a groundwork for imposing more federal regulation on insurance companies.

    Parent
    cuts two ways (none / 0) (#49)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 03:05:24 PM EST
    Yes, you have to take the loooong definition of "victim." lol

    A.I.G. was for repeal because after all the reselling, bundling, cutting up, and repackaging of the subprime mortgages, someone had to insure the "pay-back-ability" of these instruments. That someone was A.I.G.

    They felt it was easier and more profitable to expand their "services" than take any hit from opening up their business to competition.

    Now, off to the airport. (I hope they haven't changed the signs to Chinese yet)


    Parent

    Hmmmm... (none / 0) (#51)
    by santarita on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 03:26:14 PM EST
    Repeal of G-S came before the financial products involving sub-prime mortgages.

    Parent
    it takes time (none / 0) (#56)
    by desertdude on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 04:43:54 PM EST
    Well, we can hardly expect the geniuses to concoct "Structured Investment Vehicles" overnight can we?

    Parent
    Actually, no it didn't. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Pegasus on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 06:23:57 PM EST
    CDSs, RMBSs, CDOs... this stuff has all been around for quite a while.  They just didn't explode as mass-marketed financial products until recently.  And the G-S repeal may be partially to blame for that, although it's impossible to make a conclusive case.

    Parent
    Sub-Prime and Alt-A Tranches... (none / 0) (#58)
    by santarita on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:43:23 PM EST
    were relatively new, developed in 2001, I think.

    I agree that the other financial products were around before the repeal of G-S and the repeal of G-S probably did account for part of the explosion of these investment vehicles.  

    Parent

    True. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Pegasus on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 08:51:10 PM EST
    Rove shows his brilliance yet again (none / 0) (#43)
    by Newt on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:03:16 PM EST
    At the end of that advertisement:

    "Change is Coming."

    Culture war:  Jesus is Coming, God is giving us McCain to help ease our pain...

    Yeah (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 04:27:28 PM EST
    I knew that you can't rely on events to deliver an election.

    Yes, it is good news for those that have investments.