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.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (33009)	2/19/2009 6:44:44 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 71588

That there were years that Reagan could do anything he wanted No there wasn't. Yes he could count on votes from southern democrats on some issues, but he was far from being able to do whatever he wanted. Senator Gramm is often offered up as the real reason behind the housing melt down. I don't really care that Time or someone else said he was. I care about arguments for the idea, not the name of those who claim it, or the frequency that it is claimed. To the extent its true (and I think that extent is likely exagerated), its still not really very relevant to any of my posts. He would just be one more of the many people to blame. It would not mean either that the Republicans have been dominate for a long time, or that, dominate or not, they are almost solely to blame for the housing bubble and related problems. Some economists state that the 1999 legislation spearheaded by Gramm and signed into law by President Clinton — the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Notice 1st (since your making this a partisan point) that it was signed in to law by Clinton. But more importantly I just disagree with the idea that it was an important contributor to our problems. The main argument I usually here for it was that "our problems where caused by deregulation", "it was deregulation" therefore it was part of the problem. But I disagree with the 1st premise, and even if you accept the first premise as set in stone, its a lousy argument. (OTOH I'm not saying its the best argument for the idea, just a very common one, often implied more than laid out as a real argument.) For more Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Glass Steagal see meganmcardle.theatlantic.com meganmcardle.theatlantic.com or more generally on regulation meganmcardle.theatlantic.com