Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dari
Agreed. At the very least, they should bring some form of Glass-Steagall back that will be more powerful than before.
I've noticed that throughout this thread you keep talking about Glass-Steagall without mentioning the bill that repealed it, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I'm getting a bit foggy here with all the partisan hackery being thrown around in the OP... which President was that who signed the GLBA?
What difference does it make which President signed it into law? Gramm-Leach-Billey was written by bankers to regulate bankers. That makes it a complete joke in my book. It was hailed as a "modernization" of the banking system but it goes to show that it was modernizing the banking system by allowing the creation of new instruments. The regulatory part? Well, it wasn't too much of a concern. Have you read that bill?
Of course. Studying it was required reading for my license, as well as my required continuing education. Government puts special emphasis on its regulation for financial privacy, namely opt-out, definitions for consumer vs. customer, etc.
I don't recall that it allowed for the creation of new financial instruments (because it didn't, although it did remove the separation of banks and financial services companies that Glass-Steagall had imposed, which would certainly be a valid argument against it if you used that), and I do know for a fact that ALL of the particular financial instruments blamed for the housing boom/bust already existed prior to the passage of GLBA.
Your argument for why it is flawed is what I find to be a joke. Who do you propose you have written it? Doctors? Engineers? Schoolteachers?
And no matter who wrote it, we do know which of our elected officials voted for it and signed it, now don't we? I'd say that makes a lot of difference because they could have chosen not to.