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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GUNSNGOLD who wrote (205796)	1/16/2018 3:45:07 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 224718

neither refuted what Jim Rickards stated in his article. Actually I don't think he makes much of an argument on "Glass Steagal repeal"* to refute. He does shoot down some other people's arguments to the contrary, but that's mostly poinst that I wouldn't make and the people who I quoted didn't make (at least in those quotes). None of these articles or posts was written as direct responses to each other. He attacks "apologists for banks" and their arguments, but that's an argument against allowing integrated banks/bank holding companies. His one point that is really about the removal of this specific prohibition (typically called "Glass Stegal repeal") is - "It was Glass-Steagall that prevented the banks from using insured depositories to underwrite private securities and dump them on their own customers. This ability along with financing provided to all the other players was what kept the bubble-machine going for so long" So I responsed to that one myself with - ---- No need for the bank/banking company to dump them on their own customers. The seperate banks that only handled the mortgage or the securities side, had the same kind of thing happening. A bank would originate a mortgage (or buy one from some other type of mortgage company) then pass it along to investment banks to securitize. In fact the banks that didn't have combined functions seemed to have failed or required bail outs to avoid failure at a greater rate than those that were diversified in to multiple banking areas. ---- To that I'd add that most over developed countries never had a prohibition on integrating banking and investment banking in to the same company, and that didn't prevent them from also having inflated real estate prices, and their own financial crisis when the bubble popped. * - In quotes because it wasn't really repealed, but still used because elements where repealed or changed by later legislation.