RESTORE GLASS STEAGALL

20 comments

Posted on 14th May 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

,

The Too Big To Fail Banks are TOO BIG and TOO POWERFUL. They must be broken up before they destroy the world. The taxpayers should not pay for their acts of greed. Their executives, shareholders and bondholders must pay for their criminal misdeeds.

20 Comments

  1. AWD says:

    Amen to Glass Stegall.

    Shut down the casinos. Investment in legitimate businesses and production. No more debt. Keep dreaming, it’s too good to be true.

    7194701734_916e0325e2_b.jpg

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

    14th May 2012 at 3:15 pm

  2. Oscar Mannheim says:

    Now THERE is a dream worth dreaming! Unless and until this is done, the nightmare will only worsen. For so long as the fractional reserve banking system and its money-generated control over politics and the media remain intact, there is less hope for phase-implemented honest unwinding of the very disheartening societal situations worldwide. “Financiers ” and their banks must be brought to heel, but the likelihood of this happening in a reasoned, peaceful manner… Well, severe climate change in Hell comes to mind. If Glass-Steagall isn’t restored by legislation, it will likely return only if imposed in those places that slip away from federal control in a crisis situation that becomes unmanageable for the incumbent elite and their minions.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

    14th May 2012 at 3:26 pm

  3. TeresaE says:

    How I wish.

    But with Benny at the helm of the Fed, and Timmy at the helm of the Treasury and the likes of Carl-lifelong-POS-Levin in the finance committee, I’m not holding my breath.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

    14th May 2012 at 3:37 pm

  4. dd says:

    skip Volcker, go back to Glass Steagal, lots of pain for bankers, lots of good for everyone else.

    Admin: i’m shocked you have Buffett quotes on your site.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    14th May 2012 at 4:29 pm

  5. Administrator says:

    Those quotes were before he turned into a douchebag.

    At one time I admired that prick.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    14th May 2012 at 4:42 pm

  6. dd says:

    that he is adored still by so many tells us all we need to know. he has no soul, and yet he still has the majority of the sheeple confused.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

    14th May 2012 at 5:39 pm

  7. DaveL says:

    Admin: I’m curious as to why you think bondholders should be wiped out?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    14th May 2012 at 10:10 pm

  8. TeresaE says:

    Ok DaveL, I’ll bite, even if not Admin.

    They should be wiped out because they invested in a POS casino and benefited when the theft was good and easy. If you get the gains when the getting is good, it is CAPITALISM to eat the plate of shit when that is what is left. The banks (and the government(s) and the unions and the…) sure as hell cashed the checks and went on CNBC to tout how great they were, “just look at how much we are pocketing!” In the real world when/if an investment goes bad, you eat your shit sandwich.

    Investing is a RISK, else there should be no reward. Accounting and Economics 101. If my business fails I don’t expect somebody to bail out my bad decisions and return the hundreds of thousands of dollars I’ve invested. Why should my investors? Why in the hell should the bank’s investors get a special deal?

    At exactly what point in our history did we go from a nation that believed in work/risk = reward/failure, to shuffling paper/sucking from someone else’s tit = reward/government-sucker paid for failure?

    At some point in the past fifty, really closer to thirty, years, we decided effort – and failure – was for suckers, or third world inhabitants. It used to be, when we were actually a better place, that the lowliest, menial laborer, to the highest compensated manager, believed that you had to work to feed yourself – even through old age – and that if you wanted greater rewards you took greater risks and thus might go broke or bankrupt, or might get rich.

    Not anymore. Why should bondholders take a hit? Really?

    Cripes. I just died a little more inside.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

    14th May 2012 at 12:02 am

  9. Administrator says:

    “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in a society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

    -Frederick Bastiat

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    14th May 2012 at 9:00 am

  10. Administrator says:

    DaveL

    If you invest in a company that goes bankrupt, you lose. Bond holders own the debt of a bankrupt company. So Solly – you lose. It’s called real capitalism. Not the crony capitalism that makes these scumbags whole at the expense of the taxpayers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    14th May 2012 at 9:02 am

  11. DaveL says:

    I don’t think shareholders or executives should be bailed out, nor do I think bond holders should be bailed out. But I’ll presume that you and Teresa hold your opinion for all bondholders, corporate, and governmental? Somehow, I though a contract was formed between a lender and a borrower. Apparently not.I’m now surprised that anybody would lend money to anybody.

    “TeresaE says:

    Ok DaveL, I’ll bite, even if not Admin.”

    Wasn’t asking anyone to bite anything. It wasn’t a gotcha question. So you don’t have credit cards or a mortgage, or pay taxes. How nice.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    14th May 2012 at 12:29 pm

  12. Administrator says:

    Do you even understand what a bondholder is? They bought bonds that the company issued. If the company fails and does not honor the bonds, then the investor loses. WTF don’t you get?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    14th May 2012 at 1:34 pm

  13. DaveL says:

    Yes I do understand that the bondholder could lose their investment if the company went completely broke and there are no assets at all. I’m just wondering if it’s a good policy to simply say fuck you lender at the drop of a hat.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    14th May 2012 at 5:05 pm

  14. Administrator says:

    DaveL

    I am referring to the Wall Street banks that are insolvent and should have been liquidated rather than saved by you and me with our tax dollars. Guess who the bondholders of the Wall Street banks are? You guessed it – the other Wall Street banks, mutual funds, pension funds, and hedge fund pricks. You don’t think it is good policy for investors to accept the responsibility for their bad investments? I’m having trouble understanding your position.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    14th May 2012 at 7:58 pm

  15. llpoh says:

    Admin is having trouble understanding DaveL. Now there is a shocking development.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    14th May 2012 at 8:06 pm

  16. DaveL says:

    “You don’t think it is good policy for investors to accept the responsibility for their bad investments?”

    Yes, I’m sure it will go over big when the people who lend us 40 cents out of every dollar we spend are just told…fuck you, you shouldn’t have trusted us. I’m thinking that the austerity that nobody wants here will not be decided at the ballot box, ala Greece or France, but by the lenders when they say, fuck you, you ain’t getting anymore. That’ll make me happy I bought silver yesterday.

    “llpoh says:

    Admin is having trouble understanding DaveL. Now there is a shocking development.”

    Jesus, Admins got his hand on more than one string.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

    14th May 2012 at 8:56 pm

  17. Administrator says:

    Do you still not understand what the fuck I’m talking about? I’M TALKING ABOUT BANKRUPT BANKS.

    WTF does that have to do with Treasury bonds and other countries?

    I really don’t understand why I try to respond to your questions.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    14th May 2012 at 9:03 pm

  18. Novista says:

    Well, a refreshing variation on the “Repeal of Glass-Stegall” meme.

    Of course, this is not the Banking Act of 1932, these are not the droids you’re looking for. No, the Banking Act of 1933 is the Glass-Steagall that everyone refers to. Bear in mind that Carter Glass was the godfather of the Federal Reserve Act. And even he said later that “Glass-Steagall” (G-S … not to be confused with Goldman Sachs’ GS) was an overreaction at the time and wanted to repeal it.

    G-S, though, remained whole until 1999. So, taking a few pages from history, we find that when Department of HUD thought asset securitization was a good idea in 1970, G-S had no impact.

    When MERS was hatched in 1995, G-S was impotent. Fannie, Freddie, and Ginnie’s White Paper of 1993 advocated an electronic registration system. Maybe it seemed a Good Idea at the time and G-S was nowhere to complain.

    Hmmm, maybe looking at the four main provisions of G-S(1933) will help:

    * Section 16 restricted commercial national banks from engaging in most investment banking activities;
    * Section 21 prohibited investment banks from engaging in any commercial banking activities;
    * Section 20 prohibited any Federal Reserve-member bank from affiliating with an investment bank or other company “engaged principally” in securities trading;
    * Section 32 prohibited individuals from serving simultaneously with a commercial bank and an investment bank as a director, officer, employee, or principal.

    OK. the separation firewalls. And there was the modification of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1950 providing the barrier preventing banks from underwriting insurance activities.

    G-S was still whole in 1998. Nonetheless, that was the year the Fed in its wi$dom gave a Hail Mary pass to the Citicorp merger creating the Citigroup godzilla.

    Gramm-Leach-Bliley of 1999 *modified* G-S further but there had been other ‘adjustments’ prior allowing commercial banks to do investment banking, as well as stock and insurance brokerage.

    GLB got support from Senator Joe Biden and Clinton signed the thing into law. The law made it possible for a commercial bank and investment bank to be part of a common holding company.

    But the damage that led to the GFC had been done long before. November, 2006 saw the peak of the housing bubble – aided and abetted by subprime and liar’s loans. When the unravelling of the financial house of cards began with Bear Stearns and then Lehman Bros., the yaps then were “Glass-Steagal!

    WTF?

    And Goldman Sachs, American Express, CIT Group and General Motors Acceptance Corporation successfully converted to bank holding companies in order to gain access to liquidity and funding in 2008, making Too Big to Fail even bigger after the credit crunch. Funny, Andrew Ross Sorkin has only two slight mentions of G-S in 539 pages of “Too Big to Fail”.

    Empty MBS, CDOs, CDS – the madness of crowds … and complicity from ratings agencies, CRA, and all the cheerleaders … regulatory capture. There’s plenty of guilt to go around.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    14th May 2012 at 10:29 pm

  19. Live All Day ~ Jeff Steinberg On The Clinton Repeal Of Glass-Steagall * * * 2:00 PM MDT says:

    [...] Restore Glass Steagall (theburningplatform.com) [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    14th May 2012 at 5:50 pm

  20. Invisible Chains [Video] – John Malcolm says:

    [...] Restore Glass Steagall (theburningplatform.com) [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    14th May 2012 at 8:21 am

Leave a comment

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.