I have a simple question about bank deregulation.

[techs]

If banking deregulation led to the Savings and Loan collapse in the 1980's and banking deregulation just led to the banking collapse last year, then if the Republicans regain power and deregulate the banks again what will happen?

 

[IronWing]

Consumers will have more choices.

 

[techs]

Consumers will have more choices.

I wouldn't consider which park bench to sleep on "more choices"

 

[CallMeJoe]

Piggy Bank collapse?

 

[IronWing]

I wouldn't consider which park bench to sleep on "more choices"

Nope, it's all about consumer choice. Just like electrical deregulation in California.

 

[techs]

Nope, it's all about consumer choice. Just like electrical deregulation in California.

Grandma's everywhere cringe.

 

[MovingTarget]

The same crowd will make out like bandits yet again. The outrage will continue, but nobody will want to do anything meaningful to prevent it the next time.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Consumers will have more choices.

Choices how? In the last twenty years every local bank in my area has been bought out by the mega banks. All I see is less choice and lender collusion.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Nope, it's all about consumer choice. Just like electrical deregulation in California.

Do you mean to lube or not to lube?

 

[Darwin333]

If banking deregulation led to the Savings and Loan collapse in the 1980's and banking deregulation just led to the banking collapse last year, then if the Republicans regain power and deregulate the banks again what will happen?

The banks have yet to be "re-regulated". The Republicans only have to do exactly as the Democrats did for the same thing to happen again, basically nothing.

 

[manimal]

Watch robocop....

 

[Darwin333]

Consumers will have more choices.

Are you on drugs?

Everytime we have one of these financial disasters the big banks, who coincidentally seem to be almost always the same ones, buy up all of their competition making them even bigger. That gives you LESS choices and gives any remaining competitors far fewer opportunities to actually compete with the big boys.

Does your local credit union or small bank have servers co-located with the NY stock exchange and uber-advanced computer algorithms that give them a huge advantage over everyone else? Plus it gives them the ability to virtually steal money from the rest of the market. Do you suppose your local small bank will be able to obtain any sort of equal opportunity?

Hell no they won't. We have far fewer choices today AND tomorrow. It was part of their plan and it worked flawlessly. They even got the taxpayers to help us pay for them purchasing their competition for pennies on the dollar. You gotta give them credit, they seem to have gotten away with the largest and most complicated heist the world has ever seen. This shit is better than fiction.

 

[LegendKiller]

Agree 100% that we would have *less* choices. Also agree that we do not want less regulations but more and smarter ones.

 

[IronWing]

Are you on drugs?

No, just being a smart ass. I expect the next ducks to drown will be credit unions. Where I live the local credit unions have 1) gotten bigger through mergers, and 2) invested in commercial real estate in a big way. My prediction is that the credit unions will lobby for less regulation and the ability to dabble in other lines of business and operate across state lines. Then they will promptly follow the pattern of the S&Ls. Two cents please.

 

[nyker96]

I seriously hope the Republicans will learn from the bush years and be very careful in deregulating the banks again. If the banking system collapse again, it could be more serious than the last time it tanked.

 

[Jhhnn]

I seriously hope the Republicans will learn from the bush years and be very careful in deregulating the banks again. If the banking system collapse again, it could be more serious than the last time it tanked.

They're still almost completely deregulated, despite the recent financial reform measure. The whole financial industry's motto really should be "conflicts of interest R us, and you'll like it!"

After the election, and after the effects of the stimulus wear off, we're in for another downturn, simply because the parasitic action of the financial elite is too large for the economy to support w/o ongoing deficits. At least business leaders won't be able to justify hoarding of liquidity because of "uncertainty"- repub gains will put the govt in lockdown. They'll need a new excuse.

 

[werepossum]

They're still almost completely deregulated, despite the recent financial reform measure. The whole financial industry's motto really should be "conflicts of interest R us, and you'll like it!"

After the election, and after the effects of the stimulus wear off, we're in for another downturn, simply because the parasitic action of the financial elite is too large for the economy to support w/o ongoing deficits. At least business leaders won't be able to justify hoarding of liquidity because of "uncertainty"- repub gains will put the govt in lockdown. They'll need a new excuse.

Wow, if only some progressive party could have controlled Congress for the last three and half years, and had the White House too for the last year and a half. Then we'd be saved.

You seem to have some bizarre notion that business leaders are not only "hoarding" liquidity, but that they are doing so for some ulterior motive. If you could just tell us which page of the Marx's book you base this on, it might make you easier to understand.

 

[Darwin333]

They're still almost completely deregulated, despite the recent financial reform measure. The whole financial industry's motto really should be "conflicts of interest R us, and you'll like it!"

After the election, and after the effects of the stimulus wear off, we're in for another downturn, simply because the parasitic action of the financial elite is too large for the economy to support w/o ongoing deficits. At least business leaders won't be able to justify hoarding of liquidity because of "uncertainty"- repub gains will put the govt in lockdown. They'll need a new excuse.

Hoarding liquidity? That can't be right. That is the reason that we have HFT! Hell, it is often 70% of the daily volume of the market, thats gotta be a whole lot of liquidity.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wow, if only some progressive party could have controlled Congress for the last three and half years, and had the White House too for the last year and a half. Then we'd be saved.

You seem to have some bizarre notion that business leaders are not only "hoarding" liquidity, but that they are doing so for some ulterior motive. If you could just tell us which page of the Marx's book you base this on, it might make you easier to understand.

Do you have some point, beyond obfuscation and denial?

Do you ever?

The current situation is 30 years in the making, beginning with the election of RR and adoption of repub economic models, papered over with debt acquisition.

It now requires 60 votes to accomplish anything in the Senate, due to repub obstructionism en bloc. Dems have 59, several of whom are unreliable when it comes to dealing with the financial sector.

You figure it out.

 

[Anarchist420]

Savings and loan act and repeal of Glass Steagall was NOT Deregulation, it was corporate welfare and more regulation. Corporate welfare is when they give corporations special legal privelages[/sic] such as the right to embezzle, and deregulation is when property rights are not violated.

As for the OP's question, if they regulate anymore (i.e., give them special priveleges at the expense of the rest of us), then yes, something awful is going to happen.

If I were king, I'd snatch their lender of last resort from them and destroy it. After that, I'd give them mandatory life in prison without parole if they loaned someone's deposits without the consent of the owner of the deposits.

Clinton and Reagan would never deregulate. It's just like NAFTA. That was probably more than a few hundred pages of more regulations.

 

[Linflas]

If banking deregulation led to the Savings and Loan collapse in the 1980's and banking deregulation just led to the banking collapse last year, then if the Republicans regain power and deregulate the banks again what will happen?

Want to talk about the S&L mess then lets start with Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. Who exactly is it in that picture signing the bill into law and who was in control of Congress when it was passed?

 

[hal2kilo]

Nope, it's all about consumer choice. Just like electrical deregulation in California.

The perfect excuse for vultures like Enron to manipulate markets for the things people have to have. When we start enforcing anti trust laws in this country again, maybe the markets will actually function properly. And the "magic" of the markets will be able to work.

It's funny, it sure seems like publicly regulated utilities have served the public well for quite a long time. But ideology is so much more important then reality.

 

[Moonbeam]

I have a simple question to ask about string theory. What is the equation that says everything?

 

[cubby1223]

If banking deregulation led to the Savings and Loan collapse in the 1980's and banking deregulation just led to the banking collapse last year, then if the Republicans regain power and deregulate the banks again what will happen?

Where exactly is your question? You're just making a statement that you don't like Republicans, ending it with a question mark for some reason.

Your attempt doesn't even make sense. What caused the problems in the 80's? You cannot say deregulation, you have to say what the banking industry did wrong, then you determine if the "regulation" or "deregulation" even covered what the problems were.


But, I suppose this is just dumb ol' P&N Republicans all suck big time!!!! DEMOCRATS ARE GODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bamacre]

It is not as simple as "regulation" or "deregulation." Sorry OP, it is more complicated than that. They didn't simply "deregulate" when Clinton was in office. They deregulated where the financial industry wanted to, and left in place what they wanted. They did not deregulate where taxpayers were left on the hook, paying for their mistakes. And obviously, when the shit hit the fan, they didn't want the market to work, the industry wanted to be bailed out. Just like LTCM, only bigger.

The problem, well one problem, with regulation, especially for the financial industry, is that those who really need to be regulated are in bed with those writing regulations and those actually doing the regulating. So how can these regulations work? They can't, and history shows this as we've had problem after problem, and these problems come from the most regulated industries, financial, energy, etc. And the answer we get is always more regulations. But that will never work until you solve the initial problem.