Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sunny Jim who wrote (92043)	12/26/2008 11:44:06 AM
From: koan	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

>> <It was in an appropriation bill. Probably part political and part not understanding its full ramifications.> What a lame excuse!<< koan: Repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999: I was not making excuses for Clinton, just trying to understand it. Maybe Clinton did know it would cause all these problems and wa all for it, but I doubt it; or maybe Rubin or some other economic adviser gave him bad advice and talked him into letting it go. I also do not know if the appropriation bill could have been stopped. You ever worked on an appropriation bill?? I have. Lots of them at the State level. But REMEMBER, it was PHIL GRAMM who put it in, MCCain's economic adviser and an adviser to Bush. He slipped it into the appropriations bill late at night as I remember. Yes, Phil Gramm, the guy who said American's were just a bunch of whiners a few months ago and that the economy was in great shape. PS, this economic debacle was all caused by an unregulated Wall Street that went wild gambling with highly leveraged bundles of debt (40 to 1+) and had NOTHING to do with blue collor workers, unions or remiss home buyers, as the revisionists try to pin it on. And each time the bankers made risky commercial or other loans, bundled CDO's or got involved in CDS's, they took a big cut for themselves. That is where the trillions went. It was ponzi scheme.

To: Sunny Jim who wrote (92043)	12/26/2008 5:33:30 PM
From: Moominoid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

I think it was a question of not understanding how all the parts work together. Any one deregulation step on its own might not be so bad. In this case many (or most?) other countries allow what Glass-Steagall didn't. So why did the US need it? But there may be other controls in their systems. For example, here in Australia banks can go after all the assets of mortgage defaulters and the default rate is rather low. Australians are surprised when I tell them about "non-recourse" debt.