California's projected budget deficit for the year jumped from $9.2 billion
in January to $16 billion in May. The liberals like to look at the banks
because it is easier than looking in taxpayer's pockets.
@ Cincinnatus & cjbI, too, am all for Gramm-Leach-Biley being
repealed and Glass-Steagall being reinstituted.
Washington vs Banks? Really!? That is funny!An accurate assessment
is; DC + Wall St vs normal America... you know the one Mitt can't relate
Banks or any institution that accept deposits, expecially with government
insurance ought not be allowed to gamble.After the depression, bank
regulations were instituted. They protected us until lobbyests got the law
changed (I think in the 1980's). Since then we have had the savings and
loan mess and the 'too big to fail' mess.We ought to bring
this law back. Government if it does its job right, instite of what
conservatives say, has been and will be part of the solution.
"American Financiers need the latitude to excel in a global
Marketplace"? Their greedy attempts to "excel" are what caused the
problem in the first place. JPMC was doing exactly what AIG, Lehman Bros. et al
were doing with one difference. They were doing it with house money. However,
instead of hitting their customers in the wallet, it is hitting their
shareholders in the wallet. Either way billions of dollars just vanished into
thin air. The economy doesn't need more big banking and
consolidation. It needs more localization and opportunities for small business
to sprout and grow and reinvigorate the American economy. The problem is that
these megabanks don't see these smaller enterprises as an opportunity. They
consider them too small and unprofitable. These financial
institutions do not need to "excel" in order for the American economy to
excel. Instead of giving small business and individuals access to needed
capital, they have redirected it to risky ventures such as credit default swaps
and other derivatives and starving the economy. If the government is the only
one with the tools to open up markets, then the government has the
responsibility to hold these greedy pigs to account.
Important piece of banking history, Cincinnatus. Thanks for the clarification
@marxistYou need to revise your statement. Clinton
alone did not let commercial banks become investment banks. Citibank merged
with Travelers Group to become Citigroup, violating both the Glass-Steagall Act
of 1933 and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. They were given a temporary
waiver by the Federal Reserve in September 1998 and less than a year later,
Congress passed the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, allowing banks
to become more than just banks.As a point of fact- The Senate voted
overwhemingly FOR the 1999 Act (90-8, the only opposition being 8 Nays, all
Democrats). The House voted FOR the 1999 Act (362-57, 51 of the Nays were
Democrats). ALL of Utah's Representatives at the time, Hatch, Bennett,
Hansen, Cannon and Cook voted for the bill.Yes, President Clinton
signed it, but it was veto proof, due to bipartisan support and an overwhelming
Republican support. But, in the end you're correct. The results have been
very, very bad.
So if "government should let bankers be bankers," just what is a banker?
At one time, a banker was a custodian of savings and a conservative lender. As
marxist mentioned, the Clinton administration changed all that. Banks,
especially the big ones, no longer attract savers, and loans are no longer
conservative. They have become casinos.This article is a
thinly-veiled attempt to counter the growing popularity of the "Volcker
Rule" that would return banking to the pre-Clinton era of banking. It would
once again separate custodial banking from investment banking. CLM is exactly
right is characterizing the article as a puff-piece written by a big-banking
crony. This is where Americans should be directing their anger right now.
Oh please! This article reads like a puff piece by the American Bankers
Association. "...government should let bankers be bankers." Who are they
trying to kid? Government IS big bankers. And it's thanks to the Fed and
the ponzi scheme of fractional reserve banking that keeps these banks so far in
It seems the instituionalists like Thorstein Veblen were right, institutions do
dictate economic outcomes. When the Clitnon administration decided to let
commercial banks become investment banks it completely changed the banking
instituion, and the result have been very very bad indeed.