Skip to main content

View Diary: Glass-Steagall Act II -- it's Not (11 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wouldn't it just be easier... (4+ / 0-)

    ... to repeal Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Reinstate Glass-Steagall?

    Or, is that stating the obvious?  No one in the Beltway Bubble ever seems to want to enact laws that are obvious and simple.

    I've heard the "justification" of a "new" Glass-Steagall to make it more compatible with modern banking which only has computers to make it faster, but that doesn't justify keeping the old laws separating the various kinds of banking from each other to minimize the risk for ordinary people who have much smaller amounts of money in the bank than corporations.  With loopholes big enough to fly a jumbo jet through, there is no way to regulate the banks.

    I distrust pretzel-logic laws that are so twisted with loopholes that they make no sense whatsoever.  I much prefer simply-stated laws like the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.
     ~ Thomas Jefferson

    I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

    by NonnyO on Wed Dec 25, 2013 at 03:58:53 PM PST

    •  This would seem to be the simplest... (0+ / 0-)

      ... way of fixing the banks. (Caveat: I'm not a banking expert other than that I know that keeping a lot of money in a bank doesn't enhance my savings any more; not when it's lucky to be getting 1% interest. Remember when a savings account would earn 5.74%?)

      The only amendments I would add to such a change back to the Glass-Steagall policy would be

      a.) Give the banks a period of time -- a couple of years, say -- to make the split and no exceptions.

      b.) Failure to comply will result in jail time for C-level execs and boards of directors.

      c.) No fines that are nothing more than slaps on the wrist and would be paid for by depositors and shareholders, anyway.

      d.) No ability to claims of no guilt. You knew the law, you knew the deadline, if you fail to meet it, you are guilty.

      They have enough money to pull this off and it'd just be too bad (just cut the flood of crocodile tears, bankers, we're not falling for it again) if they had to forgo all raises, bonuses, art purchases, executive suite redecorations, and mergers with other banks for a couple of years to hire financial consultants to orchestrate the split in the least disruptive way.

      IMNSHO, we ought to make banking as boring as possible. Would it really be so bad if we simplified banking to the way it was pre-Reagan?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site