Basically, your diatribe supported what I wrote, so no need to discuss that.
Also, it's worth mentioning I didn't blame it on Smoot Hawley or Florida real estate. Though I have heard it blamed on both, too.
Other factors that played a role (Smoot did, without a doubt play a MAJOR role, and I have the data to prove it with the decline of international trade after Smoot) would be: raising taxes to eliminate the Federal debt, which was considered a burden, raising interest rates to choke off bad loans, imbalances in the gold reserves, the collapse of raw materials prices due to overproduction, and a major agricultural depression that happened to occur at roughly the same time as all these other things.
I never said Glass Steagall was enacted to SAVE the banks, but to stave off bad investment leverage using individuals' savings. As my analogy pointed out, it's like mortgaging the house on a Super Bowl bet. The fact that these funds are federally protected was a major flaw in the lack of prior legislation...but it was only limited benefit to those making the "bets", since the insurance only covered a portion of the potential loss.
So, pointing the finger completely at Glass Steagall is misguided. It was good legislation at the time. Times change, and so do situations. Basically, I was against removing it, but for totally different reasons than you've listed. Regardless, the effect has been the same. |
