4 ms·

Not getting rid of the Glass-Steagall Act would have limited the scope of the crisis. The act was put in place in 1933 to prevent the "too big to fail" problem

Not getting rid of the Glass-Steagall Act would have limited the scope of the crisis. The act was put in place in 1933 to prevent the "too big to fail" problem with banks that led to the Great Depression. In general, we've had a Republican congress for the last 8-10 years that has been slowly deregulating the financial services industry. Staying on a gold standard would have prevented the crisis. The gold standard was eliminated by Nixon in the 70's. In general, there were many checks and balances in place that had to be removed for us to get to where we are now. All in the name of political expediency.

Prrometheus 18y ago
Edit: I've put a lot of work into the comment below, so I would appreciate if you'd read it and respond to it. I know it's harder to discuss the specific provisions of Glass-Steagall and its affect on the market place than just saying "oh, the Glass-Steagall repeal is responsible for everything wrong". However, if people are going to cite the argument so often that it becomes the commonly accepted viewpoint, then it ought to be incumbent on them to UNDERSTAND it. Anything else is hand-waving. I hear this a lot, too, but it's hard for me to see how the Glass-Steagall Act repeal had anything to do with the current crisis. In fact, deregulation seems to have mitigated the damage. The reorganization of Bear, Merrill, Morgan, and Goldman would have been impossible were the Glass-Steagall Act still in full force. They would have all gone bankrupt or had to be rescued by the government. Many of the entities that are in good financial shape are the large financial conglomerates that would have been illegal were G-S still in place. Customer bank deposits provide a stable source of funding when lenders are skitish. Reducing the supply of capital in an embattled industry would be the height of stupidity. Many foreign countries never had any law like Glass-Steagall in place and they don't seem to be suffering the same problems. As logic tells us, the current crisis seems to be orthogonal to the presence or absence of Glass-Steagall. Mcardle also had a wonderful post FACTUALLY summarizing the provisions of Glass-Steagall and its relation to the current crisis: http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/clear_as_glass_steagall.php http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/clear_a... I also addressed this issue on my libertarian blog a while back: http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/09/22/the-end-era http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/09/22/the-end-e... A large problem during the Great Depression was that the United States had laws that artificially limited the size of banks (see "Unitary Branching Laws"). The result was that institutions in the United States had smaller financial cushions in crisis time and were more likely to go under. The United States suffered a FAR higher rate of bank failure than other countries, and states with unitary branching laws had higher failures than those without. So I know blaming the Glass-Stegall repeal for our current problems is popular(populist) wisdom, but it seems to me that popular wisdom is, as usual, wrong.
- mindslight 18y ago
  > They would have all gone bankrupt or had to be rescued by the government But isn't the point to separate the investment banks away from the savings banks? There's a fundamental type difference between a dollar earned and saved, and a promissory-based dollar conjured up by a debt instrument. When an investment bank fails (as it should when it's made a bad mortal investment), the funny money dries up, leaving the holder high and dry. If this holder employed bad accounting (by counting promised dollars as dollars-in-hand), then they may fail as well (and so on). However, this should not continue into the institutions that hold the savings of the people who didn't want to play economic make-believe. > Many foreign countries never had any law like Glass-Steagall in place and they don't seem to be suffering the same problems How many other countries have currencies that are used as reserve by the rest of the world? (which greatly lengthens the time for consequence of inflationary policy to be felt)
  - 0x44 18y ago
    If this holder employed bad accounting (by counting promised dollars as dollars-in-hand), then they may fail as well (and so on). That's called accrual accounting, and is required by United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, International Financial Reporting Standards, and the UK's Companies Act.
    - mindslight 18y ago
      What I mean is if the holder only employed such accounting. I can see how such figures are normally useful, but the abstraction can break down when you aren't paid (and in this case, did so catastrophically). If your investment bank wants to survive downturns, it should be factoring this possibility into its decisions.
  - BrandonM 18y ago
    "However, this should not continue into the institutions that hold the savings of the people who didn't want to play economic make-believe." How are these savings going to provide any interest if they are not redistributed as loans? The whole point of a bank is to allow your money to work for you while also providing loan capital to those who have a good use for it. It's impossible to have a non-negative (due to administrative costs) savings account without loaning the money to someone. Or am I completely missing your point?

Prrometheus 18y ago

Edit: I've put a lot of work into the comment below, so I would appreciate if you'd read it and respond to it. I know it's harder to discuss the specific provisions of Glass-Steagall and its affect on the market place than just saying "oh, the Glass-Steagall repeal is responsible for everything wrong". However, if people are going to cite the argument so often that it becomes the commonly accepted viewpoint, then it ought to be incumbent on them to UNDERSTAND it. Anything else is hand-waving. I hear this a lot, too, but it's hard for me to see how the Glass-Steagall Act repeal had anything to do with the current crisis. In fact, deregulation seems to have mitigated the damage. The reorganization of Bear, Merrill, Morgan, and Goldman would have been impossible were the Glass-Steagall Act still in full force. They would have all gone bankrupt or had to be rescued by the government. Many of the entities that are in good financial shape are the large financial conglomerates that would have been illegal were G-S still in place. Customer bank deposits provide a stable source of funding when lenders are skitish. Reducing the supply of capital in an embattled industry would be the height of stupidity. Many foreign countries never had any law like Glass-Steagall in place and they don't seem to be suffering the same problems. As logic tells us, the current crisis seems to be orthogonal to the presence or absence of Glass-Steagall. Mcardle also had a wonderful post FACTUALLY summarizing the provisions of Glass-Steagall and its relation to the current crisis: http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/clear_as_glass_steagall.php http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/clear_a... I also addressed this issue on my libertarian blog a while back: http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/09/22/the-end-era http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/09/22/the-end-e... A large problem during the Great Depression was that the United States had laws that artificially limited the size of banks (see "Unitary Branching Laws"). The result was that institutions in the United States had smaller financial cushions in crisis time and were more likely to go under. The United States suffered a FAR higher rate of bank failure than other countries, and states with unitary branching laws had higher failures than those without. So I know blaming the Glass-Stegall repeal for our current problems is popular(populist) wisdom, but it seems to me that popular wisdom is, as usual, wrong.

mindslight 18y ago
> They would have all gone bankrupt or had to be rescued by the government But isn't the point to separate the investment banks away from the savings banks? There's a fundamental type difference between a dollar earned and saved, and a promissory-based dollar conjured up by a debt instrument. When an investment bank fails (as it should when it's made a bad mortal investment), the funny money dries up, leaving the holder high and dry. If this holder employed bad accounting (by counting promised dollars as dollars-in-hand), then they may fail as well (and so on). However, this should not continue into the institutions that hold the savings of the people who didn't want to play economic make-believe. > Many foreign countries never had any law like Glass-Steagall in place and they don't seem to be suffering the same problems How many other countries have currencies that are used as reserve by the rest of the world? (which greatly lengthens the time for consequence of inflationary policy to be felt)
- 0x44 18y ago
  If this holder employed bad accounting (by counting promised dollars as dollars-in-hand), then they may fail as well (and so on). That's called accrual accounting, and is required by United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, International Financial Reporting Standards, and the UK's Companies Act.
  - mindslight 18y ago
    What I mean is if the holder only employed such accounting. I can see how such figures are normally useful, but the abstraction can break down when you aren't paid (and in this case, did so catastrophically). If your investment bank wants to survive downturns, it should be factoring this possibility into its decisions.
- BrandonM 18y ago
  "However, this should not continue into the institutions that hold the savings of the people who didn't want to play economic make-believe." How are these savings going to provide any interest if they are not redistributed as loans? The whole point of a bank is to allow your money to work for you while also providing loan capital to those who have a good use for it. It's impossible to have a non-negative (due to administrative costs) savings account without loaning the money to someone. Or am I completely missing your point?