6 ms·
Regulators Move to Ease Post-Crisis Oversight of Wall Street
- neaden 8y agoAlternate title: Regulators Move to Ease Pre-Crisis Oversight of Wall Street.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoTook me a minute to get that. And, arguably, that's what happened last time - the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a big part of creating the environment where the crisis was possible.
- Circumnavigate 8y agoGlass-Steagall needs to be repealed.
- olliej 8y agoWhy? Do you have a better solution that doesn’t involve bankrupting individuals and paying out corporations who gambled on other peoples money?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jressey 8y agoAre you cosplaying as the Monopoly man? Nobody who lived beyond the 1920's thinks this is a valid idea.
- outside1234 8y agoDid you hear that on Fox News?
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoI think those replying (and downvoting) need to adjust their sarcasm detector and re-read.
- mrguyorama 8y agoExcept there are plenty of people who truly believe that, and it's hard to tell the difference anymore
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoThere's plenty of people who believe that Glass-Steagall needs to be repealed? It was repealed in 1999 (the relevant parts, anyway). That's part of how we got to 2008. Anyone who believes that Glass-Steagall needs to be repealed is literally two decades behind on the news. That's why I think that it was sarcasm. "We need to remove the post-crisis oversight" is being compared to repeal of Glass-Steagall. That helped create the next (2008) crisis; the implication being that ending the post-crisis supervision will help create the next crisis.
- ham_sandwich 8y agoWouldn’t large banks and other institutions be in favor of more regulations to deepen their moats? I could see why they’d want to get rid of Volckler though, so the big I-banks can return to the serious pre-crisis trading revenues they were printing. Just looking quickly at Goldman’s 2006 10K shows they had over $25B in trading revenue, compared to $5.6B from their traditional investment banking sleeve. I had no idea it was at that level, wow.
- b_tterc_p 8y agoBanking is already very difficult to enter. They have one of the biggest moats across all industries. This is just a block on extra risky behaviors that are quite lucrative for the banks.
- Causality1 8y ago"Stock trading is a young man's game. Right about ten or twelve years after a crisis, most of the brokers are the floor are too young to remember what the last crash looked like. You start to hear rumors about bold new ways of doing things, bold new ways which usually amount to lying, cheating, and stealing."
- marricks 8y agoI feel like they learned their lesson, and unfortunately for us that lesson was the government will bail out big banks and executives will get away with it unscathed so let’s start the boom bust cycle over again in earnest.
- AlexTWithBeard 8y agoWell, if you're taking about TARP, the big banks paid everything back with interest, so the government has even made some profit from this bailout.
- pgrote 8y agoThe main point being made, I think, is that the government's job isn't to choose the winners and losers in the market.
- magduf 8y agoThere's no way the government can avoid doing that. The job of any regulator is to choose winners and losers, to keep things balanced. The problem is that in this case, the government chose to bail out the giant entities that caused the problem, and totally ignore the individual citizens who were really harmed by it.
- neaden 8y agoBut doesn't the government have a responsibility to help ensure jobs are available to it's citizens? That there is a food supply that is stable and won't collapse with disruptions? That you have the industry to make tanks and planes in the event of a war? Turning everything over to the free market is not a stable solution.
- akoncius 8y agobut in this case government makes sure that there are no losers at least in banking system.
- dageshi 8y ago
- codeduck 8y agoThose who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
- awakeasleep 8y agoI don't know if this saying applies here. In the crisis, the finance industry was able to pillage the wealth of the citizenry, then foreclose on all the property when it blew up, then rent the property back to the citizens. A saying for this situation would be more like "A pack of wolves won't be satisfied with eating just one sheep" If the citizenry isn't able to defend itself by electing good representation, it's defenseless to this type of predation.
- ionised 8y agoGreat. So nobody learned anything, back to business as usual. Boom. Bust. Bailout. Boom. Bust. Bailout. And the tax payer will get the shaft, every time.