WombatControl: The Glass-Steagall "repeal" didn't have anything to do with reserve requirements. There was a separate regulatory action in 2004 that allegedly reduced capital reserve requirements and allowed for higher leverage - but apparently even that doesn't deserve the blame it's gotten.

I'm a little sympathetic to the argument that the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was a cause to the crisis. But that was a bipartisan failure. It could have put CDS instruments under some kind of regulatory regime. But the reason it didn't was because A:) very few people felt it was important at the time and B:) they didn't know whether to classify it as an insurance product or a security.

Even if the CDS market were regulated, that wouldn't have stopped the crisis, it may just have kept it from spreading. The run on the CDS market was a symptom of the crash rather than a cause.

The real cause was massive systemic overleverage on bad assets. But that's not a cause that lets people pick scapegoats, so it tends to be ignored.

But again, Glass-Steagall wasn't the problem here. If anything, it kept the contagion down by giving banks a backstop against systemic collapse. If banks couldn't have diversified to hedge against risk in either commercial or investment markets, the collapse could have taken down one or both. Then you would have seen a much bigger, much more destructive collapse.

Glass-Steagall is the root of the problems you just described. Because of its repeal, the Commodities Modernization Act was created and implemented quickly and without any sort of regulatory oversight. I see why you think repealing Glass-Steagall isn't the main cause, but it was certainly the beginning of a long chain of events that did lead to the crash.

There were in fact a variety of factors that led to the crash including overleveraging, under regulation of the derivative market and bullshiat repackaging of toxic loans that were labeled as AAA assets when in fact, they never should have been labeled as such,.

Because of Glass-Steagall's repeal however, the damage wasn't contained to the lending institutions that caused the initial problems. Instead, the problem spread like a contagion which is why we had thousands of bank failures in the first two years after the crisis. Banks, especially local smaller branches were hit hard because of their investments in the toxic morgages ponzi scheme that was created as a direct result of the Glass-Steagall and CFMA provided.

You can try and steer blame away from Glass-Steagall all you like, but you cannot deny the fact that it did indeed lead to the vast majority of the problems we faced in 2008. Reinstating it would be a great start to getting things back on track.

hurdboy: Knight of the Woeful Countenance: If there was one thing I learned in my time in radio, it's that whenever you hear a glut of advertising for a particular product (especially in the financial industry), that's the time to short the shiat out of it. The next one is gold.

You're right on the gold, though I wouldn't be big on shorting it. The supply, absolutely, is constrained. Can't say the same thing about real estate. And with so many home"owners'" who have basically zero credit,that cash-out refi is a distant memory...

You've got a point on gold, though I still think it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overvalued, especially if the economy continues to improve as it has. It should be sitting at around $900 an ounce. But again, I don't have the money to short it to that, so I'll just be sitting here thinking about all the money I could be making just like I was in 2004 when my gf laughed at me for suggesting she invest in gold then...

que sera sera I suppose. :/

X-boxershorts: Policies in America that used to work and helped foster the greatest expansion of the American economy coupled with a regulatory framework that protects Americans and minimizes the impact of economic abuses is now leftist.

Those are the things that the Marketing Department of the Left wants you to believe will be the result of their Leftist governmental actions.

These benefits never actually materialize, but the real costs certainly do. There is an endless supply of idiots the world over who never stop believing the lies. It's kind of cute, in a sad sort of way, like the people who dress up like Hobbits and go to conventions and pretend they're wizards and elves and such.

Philip Francis Queeg: OMG you're a RON PAUL supporter, aren't you?

No.

OMG.

You're younger than 20 years old, aren't you?

Economists now predicting a "lost decade" in the U.S., characterized by high unemployment, sluggish growth and rising inequality. Welcome to the Republican Economy



fixed for truth, justice, and the American way...

Phinn: X-boxershorts: Policies in America that used to work and helped foster the greatest expansion of the American economy coupled with a regulatory framework that protects Americans and minimizes the impact of economic abuses is now leftist.

Those are the things that the Marketing Department of the Left wants you to believe will be the result of their Leftist governmental actions.

These benefits never actually materialize, but the real costs certainly do. There is an endless supply of idiots the world over who never stop believing the lies. It's kind of cute, in a sad sort of way, like the people who dress up like Hobbits and go to conventions and pretend they're wizards and elves and such.

Well, yeah there's no benefit to social security and medicare, other than you know, helping people survive and whatnot. But you can't quantify that so it totally doesn't count.

X-boxershorts: Not only are you an idiot, you're also a condescending jerk.

Did I say mean things and hurt your fee fees?

Phinn: X-boxershorts: Not only are you an idiot, you're also a condescending jerk.

Did I say mean things and hurt your fee fees?

What hurts my feelings is how stupid you are.

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Snarfangel: Rather than an unfunded mandate, state and federal government could provide an hourly wage subsidy. It would make the costs more explicit, while at the same time increasing employment. Plus, it's more economically efficient than a wage floor.

Exactly, there's literally no way a business like Wal*Mart would reduce wages such that their payroll costs were subsidized by the federal or state government.

We aren't too good at keeping them from abusing the B-1 visa program for educated employees who have degrees and significantly more bargaining power and political influence than the very poor, yet apparently we can trust large businesses to pay the poor the most they can afford to pay them prior to the subsidy?

lennavan: Well, yeah there's no benefit to social security and medicare, other than you know, helping people survive and whatnot. But you can't quantify that so it totally doesn't count.

You mean the massive subsidies that working people provide to the wealthiest segment of the US population regardless of their income?

But you're right. No one survived before the federal government. They all died. All of them.

Phinn: lennavan: Well, yeah there's no benefit to social security and medicare, other than you know, helping people survive and whatnot. But you can't quantify that so it totally doesn't count.

You mean the massive subsidies that working people provide to the wealthiest segment of the US population regardless of their income?

But you're right. No one survived before the federal government. They all died. All of them.

Good point, unless we identify a problem with a 100% death rate, it's not worth addressing.

Phinn: lennavan: Well, yeah there's no benefit to social security and medicare, other than you know, helping people survive and whatnot. But you can't quantify that so it totally doesn't count.

You mean the massive subsidies that working people provide to the wealthiest segment of the US population regardless of their income?

But you're right. No one survived before the federal government. They all died. All of them.


You mean that time when corporations provided pensions plans and didn't cut 1/3 of their staff in order to pay out bonuses to the executive management? You mean that era? When money was invested by the corporations in order to care for their employees during their retirement?

So you tell us, oh wise one, what were those millions of retirees supposed to do, exactly, when those pension funds were raided and destroyed by greedy businesses? Before the 401(k) plan was even an idea, before Social Security, before IRAs?

You, and people like you, would be greatly amusing if only you didn't vote for people who are actively destroying our middle class...

X-boxershorts: Hoover was no progressive, he was the most free market laissez faire president the nation had ever seen up to that time.

Now you're just telling stories. He was a member of the Progressive Party for a while.

I guess you never heard about his policies of wage protectionism, unemployment subsidies, massive public works projects, large and increasing federal deficits, federal loans to businesses, and farm-price manipulations.

Predicted? As opposed to the lost decade that's already happened?

pwhp_67: So you tell us, oh wise one, what were those millions of retirees supposed to do, exactly, when those pension funds were raided and destroyed by greedy businesses? Before the 401(k) plan was even an idea, before Social Security, before IRAs?

401(k) plans and IRAs are just untaxed savings accounts. People did save money before those types of plans existed, you know. These types of accounts only exist because of income taxation on salaried employees. If you abolished income taxation, then people could just save their money directly, free of taxation, just as they do now. All of their income would be tax-free, instead of just the 401(k)/IRA part.

Phinn: pwhp_67: So you tell us, oh wise one, what were those millions of retirees supposed to do, exactly, when those pension funds were raided and destroyed by greedy businesses? Before the 401(k) plan was even an idea, before Social Security, before IRAs?

401(k) plans and IRAs are just untaxed savings accounts. People did save money before those types of plans existed, you know. These types of accounts only exist because of income taxation on salaried employees. If you abolished income taxation, then people could just save their money directly, free of taxation, just as they do now. All of their income would be tax-free, instead of just the 401(k)/IRA part.

So tell us, is there any politician or political party that reflects your views?

Phinn: People did save money before those types of plans existed, you know


And people did live off of company pensions before those companies were overwhelmed by greed.

Nice to see you can't acknowledge any fact, on any level, that opposes your clouded view of reality...

hurdboy: What I do know is that neither party is interested in truly solving anything more than serving one focus group through an election cycle. That, in and of itself, ought to make people sad.

Bullshiat. Clinton gave health care overhauls a shot, republicans deadlocked things and proposed an alternative they didn't want passed.

Fast forward to Bush: plenty of time with majority legislative control, zero attempts to do ANYTHING regarding health care costs.

Obama: attempts to make health care more affordable and reliable on the whole with the mandate, elimination of pre-existing conditions. The affordable care act isn't great, but its at least an attempt, and frankly most of the reason its mediocre is the fault of conservatives: both republicans themselves, and the blue dogs from right leaning districts.

Now, health care is just one piece of the overall pie, that much is true. BUT, affordable health care for the poor is essential if you want to sit around discussing why the bottom half of our nation has an average of zero dollars in net wealth. From healthy children, to people capable of working into the later years of their lives. It will affect individuals with their ability to get and afford regular health maintenance as well (And realize many of these people get no sick leave and are often biatched out for taking unpaid sick days, like those are some kind of vacation, so being sick means an overpriced trip to a doctor they may have no coverage for and then the pay loss stacking on top of that). It means, hopefully, fewer bankruptcies do to health concerns.

Now, you want to blame both sides, and maybe you are thinking "well, the republicans have a solution too, its just similarly blocked by democrats". First, the affordable care act is basically the republican solution proposed in response to hillarycare. Second, they made no effort to enact change when they held the reigns of power. Third, they don't have the political will and backing to actually support their rhetoric: they talk up the free market (which I would contend free market principles can't apply to health care very well anyways). Will they get rid of medicare, which means people pay a private for-profit insurer while they are health and then at the most expensive portions of their lives fall back on government care? No. Will they get rid of medicaid? No, they won't. They'll do their best to make it shiatty and keep things as insolvent as possible, but even the 'keep government out of my life' folks only mean it so far. Will they allow hospitals to do credit checks before servicing? Nope. They talk up the free market with sink or swim and all that, but at the end of the day, they won't let people rot and die either. So people still all end up on the government health care rolls at some point, it just ends up costing more than it should.


Now, again, health care is only one piece of the puzzle, sure, but I think its pretty disingenuous to present things with this bsrb bullshiat. At least in health care, they are clearly not equally bad (unless you subscribe to the conspiracy theory in which both parties are working together and playing good cop bad cop, in which case you are a nutjob). And, whats more, is the blame even to lie with the republican legislature themselves, or their constituents who won't give up the medicare, medicaid, hospital care rules, etc, but keep voting in people based on rhetoric that suggests those are the right moves, while at the same time those politicians know if they started to follow through with their own rhetoric they'd be sunk. At some point, we can't put any more blame on corporate influence, propaganda, or mere divisiveness, it really is the fault of the people. PEOPLE, the AMERICAN PEOPLE, are holding us back on health care.

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: Glass-Steagall is the root of the problems you just described. Because of its repeal, the Commodities Modernization Act was created and implemented quickly and without any sort of regulatory oversight. I see why you think repealing Glass-Steagall isn't the main cause, but it was certainly the beginning of a long chain of events that did lead to the crash.

There were in fact a variety of factors that led to the crash including overleveraging, under regulation of the derivative market and bullshiat repackaging of toxic loans that were labeled as AAA assets when in fact, they never should have been labeled as such,.

Because of Glass-Steagall's repeal however, the damage wasn't contained to the lending institutions that caused the initial problems. Instead, the problem spread like a contagion which is why we had thousands of bank failures in the first two years after the crisis. Banks, especially local smaller branches were hit hard because of their investments in the toxic morgages ponzi scheme that was created as a direct result of the Glass-Steagall and CFMA provided.

You can try and steer blame away from Glass-Steagall all you like, but you cannot deny the fact that it did indeed lead to the vast majority of the problems we faced in 2008. Reinstating it would be a great start to getting things back on track.

Yeah, I can deny it, because it's not true. You're correct with most of the causes of the crash, but Glass-Stegall had absolutely nothing to do with any of them.

Glass-Stegall had nothing to do with leverage standards, with commodities trading, with CDS, with CDOs, or any of the real causes of the crash. All GLB did it "repealing" Glass-Steagall was allow commercial banks and investment banks to affiliate with each other.

The financial institutions that cratered weren't covered by Glass-Steagall. Lehman wasn't, neither was Bear Stearns, nor was Merrill Lynch. And none of the activities that actually caused the crash would have been banned by Glass-Steagall. It didn't ban securitization of mortgage assets, it didn't ban CDOs, and it had nothing to do with subprime lending. All of those things could have happened had Glass-Steagall been in place.

And it was the combined banks like BofA and Wells Fargo that did the best in surviving the crisis. If they didn't have commercial operations to serve as a backstop against the problems in the investment market, the crisis would have spread.

You're correct in pointing out the causes of the crash, but you're wrong in assuming that Glass-Steagall had anything to do with them. The only real argument that Glass-Steagall had anything to do with the crisis is the argument that the combined banks caused the pure investment banks to push their risk envelopes - but there's no real evidence for that position.

Phinn: X-boxershorts: Obama said mean things and hurt their fee fees.

How many businesses do you run? How many have you started? How many people do you employ? What's the gross revenue passing through your businesses?

Considering the massive outpouring of OPINION about the economy and business and politics, I have to assume you are all a bunch of experts, with many combined decades of experience and success to show for it.

You're not just talking out of your ass or anything, right? You're not just a mouthy, insignificant peanut-gallery do-nothing bloviator, are you?

As someone running his fourth startup business, 2012 sales est 7 million, your posts are setting off all my bullshiat detectors.

No business owner does jack in any way in response to who's in the White House. Everything is based on demand. Going up? I'm hiring and expanding. Down? Scale back.

You have not had any such discussions. You are a liar.

Phinn: Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, I'm sure that your claims are 100% based in reality and that all these extremely successful businesspeople you deal with are turning away business because of the evil man in the White House.

I bet they all live in Canada, which is why we don't know them.

Denial: check.
Anger: check.

I'm not saying that the entrepreneurs I deal with all day long are correct. I happen to think the difference between Republican and Democrat administrations is negligible.

But their perception, with perfect unanimity, is that Obama is the problem. They do not trust him. They are not making major business moves until he's out.

Their perception is the reality that you're not dealing with.

You just want to demonize them, or disbelieve me. Fine. Do what you like. But you're not accomplishing anything.

Weird, cause the very large businesses with which I work couldn't give two flying farks about Obama. But the game of Chicken being played by our legislative branch absolutely froze up their accounts during the budget ceiling debate. And as they all tried to close their books early in March, not a one of them were capable of conducting business properly. When you have a several-dozen-vendor large supply chain, and everybody ramped down for about 3 years straight to adjust for the recession, it takes some time to evaluate your new position and ramp back up. Plus, all the different sectors need to simultaneously ramp up, or somebody ends up taking the first steps on faith.

I've not heard, in all of these gyrations, one single mention of the US president. I've heard far more frequent mentions about small time vendors who lost business due to the downturn and cut headcount by upwards of 50%, and now their customers are clamoring for parts and widgets and voila. Bottleneck. And so long as *I'm* not the bottleneck, I don't need to hire more people.

This "uncertainty" malarkey has fark all to do with business. It's a political buzzword and has no bearing on what decisions a business makes unless that business happens to be venture capitalism.

Now go take your weak sauce to the kids table where it belongs.

El Pachuco: As someone running his fourth startup business, 2012 sales est 7 million, your posts are setting off all my bullshiat detectors.

No business owner does jack in any way in response to who's in the White House. Everything is based on demand. Going up? I'm hiring and expanding. Down? Scale back.

You have not had any such discussions. You are a liar.

That's impressive. What kind of business are you in?

What's even more impressive than your entrepreneurial skill, however, is your access to some kind of crystal ball or other mystical scrying device. It's incredible that you just know what I have seen and heard.

Tell me, Merlin, what am I doing right now? (Hint: it involves your mom.)

WombatControl: Yeah, I can deny it, because it's not true. You're correct with most of the causes of the crash, but Glass-Stegall had absolutely nothing to do with any of them.

Glass-Stegall had nothing to do with leverage standards, with commodities trading, with CDS, with CDOs, or any of the real causes of the crash. All GLB did it "repealing" Glass-Steagall was allow commercial banks and investment banks to affiliate with each other.

The financial institutions that cratered weren't covered by Glass-Steagall. Lehman wasn't, neither was Bear Stearns, nor was Merrill Lynch. And none of the activities that actually caused the crash would have been banned by Glass-Steagall. It didn't ban securitization of mortgage assets, it didn't ban CDOs, and it had nothing to do with subprime lending. All of those things could have happened had Glass-Steagall been in place.

And it was the combined banks like BofA and Wells Fargo that did the best in surviving the crisis. If they didn't have commercial operations to serve as a backstop against the problems in the investment market, the crisis would have spread.

You're correct in pointing out the causes of the crash, but you're wrong in assuming that Glass-Steagall had anything to do with them. The only real argument that Glass-Steagall had anything to do with the crisis is the argument that the combined banks caused the pure investment banks to push their risk envelopes - but there's no real evidence for that position.

You're ignoring what I said. Glass-Steagall's repeal exasberated the problem by allowing those banks to combine their lending and savings institutions together. Because BoFA, Wells Fargo (and various other smaller banks scattered across the country) were heavily invested in places like Lehman/Bear Sterns, they also felt the pain when the house of cards came tumbling down. The repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed those banks to mix the depositor's money with their investment money, which was placed in accounts like those.

That's where the repeal of Glass-Steagall farked over so many of the middle class. They came to see their Roth IRAs/Mutual funds/retirement accounts balloon up over the years because of BoFA/Wells Fargo investments in those types of toxic funds. The two houses should have been kept separate. They weren't. That's where the real pain of the crash was felt. Housing bubble aside, overleveraging their deposits was a big problem anyway and that bill was going to come due regardless of subprime mortages or not.

hurdboy:

You won't get an argument from me about it being overpriced. Still doesn't mean I'd bet on it dropping much. Even with Art Schlicter's money.

In this era of economics from the creepy cat gu (he's got a , dontchaknow?!)y, I know Friedman economics is passe, but price is most often a function of supply and available money, not supply and demand.

I'm skeptical about a significantenough contraction in either supply or available money to really affect price.


Similarly, I don't see a big drop in the price of pork bellies so long as there's still French chefs around. (And my wife still refuses to try it. :-/)

Hah!

But, seriously, a big part of the run up in gold was the average day trader looking to make a quick buck in a (historically) stable precious metal. Everyone saw shiat hitting the fan in 2008 and ran for safety in gold and Treasury Bills. Added to the mix was the average Joe being told by every right wing AM radio jock that the world was coming to an end and their only salvation was to invest in gold certificates, you had a direct influx of money into the gold market that again (historically) hasn't been there. Glut of money + a stable supply = higher commodity prices (i.e. Gold).

We saw the peak of gold last year at 1900. It ain't touching that again, especially if Obama gets another term and the economy continues to recover. That's all I'm saying... I agree that there isn't much more room for correction, but I really believe that $900 should be the right price in about a year or two.

/waiting patiently for all the gold bugs to come in here to tell me how wrong I am.

BeesNuts: Weird, cause the very large businesses with which I work couldn't give two flying farks about Obama.

Maybe they're more insulated against the vicissitudes of the federal government, owing to their size, which tends to be roughly commensurate with the level of influence they exert over that very same government.

WombatControl: and it (Glass-Steagal repeal) had nothing to do with subprime lending

Oh, you really are intentionally ignorant. Carry on, wayward soldier.

For everyone else, without the repeal, those banks would have never made those loans as they would have been stuck with them. Here's a link to nice, easy-to-understand stick figure slide show. Again, without the repeal of Glass-Steagal, none of this would have been possible.

Phinn: CheapEngineer: Ah, a leech. This explains much.

I'd be willing to "conservatively" wager that at *least* 50% of the commenters in this thread are college educated, and have jobs at real businesses with real wages and families to support. Do you consider that too far-fetched?

So, if those commenters are working, and their experience is that the company they work for is not sitting on their hands, converting their assets to gold and beef jerky (Gold Beef Jerky - what a marvelous idea) then perhaps you can see why they consider your assertion that Every Last Business that you deal with is so scared of Fartbongo that they are patiently awaiting rescue to be complete bullshiat.

Or you're such a lousy litigator you can't even manage to reason out your arguments in front of a bunch of cheeto-stained Libtards on a dweeb website without resorting to insults, lies and abuse.

Personally, I think these businesses are just withholding their money from *you*, and telling you "I'm waiting for Obama to get run out of town on a rail" as a way of rationalizing why they won't give *you* any of their money.

They get rid of you, and you stride off with the smug satisfaction that once Fartbongo is retired, you'll be back.

\the "reformat and reinstall" of lawyer relations
\\maybe you should give that barrista job a shot

Other than about 5 layers of self-serving assumptions and an assortment of typical psychological defense mechanisms, you've got everything right!

Also, I'm not making an "argument," brain-trust. I'm merely reporting something that I found somewhat surprising -- a broad uniformity of opinion. I don't get into political conversations with my clients. It's not appropriate. They say these things to me. And I'm not the only one.

My experience is anecdotal, sure. The fact that a dozen Farkers attack me for saying it is funny. As though you can argue your way into persuading people to spend money. When I point this out, they get even angrier. You people should go ...

I'll have you know I have independently formed the opinion, without the help of the Obama administration, Media Matters or George Soros that you are condescending twat.

I base my opinion on the only information I have (and hopefully the only contact I will *ever* have with you) - the sum of your comments in *this thread*.

Anyone else agree?

The fact that a dozen Farkers attack me for saying it is funny.

They disagree, and *you* said "every single one". Granted, with the amount of feces that gets thrown here you'd think the sense of smell would be deadened.

But Farkers can usually smell bullshiat from a mile away, and apparently you are Bhopal.

<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7090575/76708299#c76708299" target="_blank">Crunch61</a>:</b> <i>For everyone else, without the repeal, those banks would have never made those loans as they would have been stuck with them. Here's a link to nice, easy-to-understand stick figure slide show. Again, without the repeal of Glass-Steagal, none of this would have been possible.</i>

1. Subprime lending was happening prior to GLB.

2. That slideshow does a piss poor job of illustrating the realities of the situation. Funny, but piss poor.

Phinn, what three counties are you involved in? Inquiring minds would like to know about three of the wealthiest counties in the U.S. that have only small and medium-size firms.

How come no one ever blames Osama? No typo. Osama bin Laden. Sure, the groundwork for failure started as far back as Reagan, and sure, Clinton had his hand in the mess. We all blame Bush jr. for the mess now... but didn't he just fall into the trab OBL laid for him? Seriously, the Soviets were bleed dry by the Afganistan war. So what did OBL do? He targeted a major financial center, which took out plenty of key employees. He put the breaks on the airlines. He knew the economy would falter and we would come up with some sort of voodoo economics to keep us all shopping. He knew we would spend trillions and get bogged down for decades.

About the only thing he didn't know was how far a shakey U.S. President would go to make up for his shortcomings.

I blame Bush for falling for one of the most obvious plays in history,

CheapEngineer: Anyone else agree?

Not man enough to stand on your own opinions?

darcsun: I blame Bush for falling for one of the most obvious plays in history,

A land war in Asia?

CrackpipeCardozo: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7090575/76708299#c76708299" target="_blank">Crunch61</a>:</b> <i>For everyone else, without the repeal, those banks would have never made those loans as they would have been stuck with them. Here's a link to nice, easy-to-understand stick figure slide show. Again, without the repeal of Glass-Steagal, none of this would have been possible.</i>

1. Subprime lending was happening prior to GLB.

2. That slideshow does a piss poor job of illustrating the realities of the situation. Funny, but piss poor.

1. Some, yes. The banks took the risks then. Nothing to the extent shown after GLB.

2. Then you missed an excellent opportunity to educate the masses.

Phinn: CheapEngineer: Anyone else agree?

Not man enough to stand on your own opinions?


Asks the FOX parrot...

hurdboy: While the Clinton plan sucked in its own, special ways (hello HMOs, which might as well be the Duke of health care), it was still something the Democrats could have rammed through in 1994 if they'd wanted to.

So you are claiming they put forth the bill for shiats and giggles with no intention of trying to pass it?

I really get tired of the whole "xxx could ram through anything they want" stuff. If democrats have a control on paper but just enough democrats are unwilling to do it, you can't say "therefore democrats as a whole don't care about XXX" which is pretty much what you are doing. Its a spectrum. You've got far right folks, far left, and of course a number line isn't sufficient. You agree that the right wing is dead set against any progress. That same wing is heavily supported in this nation, whether we like it or not. Then the left wing repeatedly TRIES to enact change, but 70-80% of them aren't enough to get it done and the other 20-30% are moderate/right leaning on the issue, and therefore you conclude "the party isn't interested in doing anything".

Well bull shiat. The party as a whole is interested in it. Interested enough that they made a little bit of progress under Obama, but not nearly enough. Sitting back and crying that 70% of one of the two major parties can't get things done and saying that makes them the same as the other party wrt trying to solve things is bullshiat. You can only blame those legislators so much. As I said, this issue comes right back to the American People, who lean strongly to the right for now.

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: WombatControl: Yeah, I can deny it, because it's not true. You're correct with most of the causes of the crash, but Glass-Stegall had absolutely nothing to do with any of them.

Glass-Stegall had nothing to do with leverage standards, with commodities trading, with CDS, with CDOs, or any of the real causes of the crash. All GLB did it "repealing" Glass-Steagall was allow commercial banks and investment banks to affiliate with each other.

The financial institutions that cratered weren't covered by Glass-Steagall. Lehman wasn't, neither was Bear Stearns, nor was Merrill Lynch. And none of the activities that actually caused the crash would have been banned by Glass-Steagall. It didn't ban securitization of mortgage assets, it didn't ban CDOs, and it had nothing to do with subprime lending. All of those things could have happened had Glass-Steagall been in place.

And it was the combined banks like BofA and Wells Fargo that did the best in surviving the crisis. If they didn't have commercial operations to serve as a backstop against the problems in the investment market, the crisis would have spread.

You're correct in pointing out the causes of the crash, but you're wrong in assuming that Glass-Steagall had anything to do with them. The only real argument that Glass-Steagall had anything to do with the crisis is the argument that the combined banks caused the pure investment banks to push their risk envelopes - but there's no real evidence for that position.

You're ignoring what I said. Glass-Steagall's repeal exasberated the problem by allowing those banks to combine their lending and savings institutions together. Because BoFA, Wells Fargo (and various other smaller banks scattered across the country) were heavily invested in places like Lehman/Bear Sterns, they also felt the pain when the house of cards came tumbling down. The repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed those banks to mix the depositor's money with their investment money, which was placed in accounts like those.

That's where the repeal of Glass-Steagall farked over so many of the middle class. They came to see their Roth IRAs/Mutual funds/retirement accounts balloon up over the years because of BoFA/Wells Fargo investments in those types of toxic funds. The two houses should have been kept separate. They weren't. That's where the real pain of the crash was felt. Housing bubble aside, overleveraging their deposits was a big problem anyway and that bill was going to come due regardless of subprime mortages or not.

Again, the problem with that theory is that it isn't true - the large banks didn't commingle depositor's money and investment money - for one, that would have been (IIRC) illegal. And second, Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with people's retirement accounts, other than letting them be housed in a combined bank. Nothing you've pointed to was banned by Glass-Steagall.

In fact, if Glass-Steagall had never been "repealed" the only difference was that those retirement accounts would have been held at a pure investment bank that would have gone under just like the others - if your retirement plan was through Merrill Lynch, you were hosed. If it were through Wells Fargo, you were still in trouble, but you weren't watching your account go down in flames.

That's why the crash unfolded as it did - with the pure investment banks getting killed while the larger banks rode out the storm. If GLB was the real problem behind the crash, the exact opposite would have happened.

MindStalker: darcsun: I blame Bush for falling for one of the most obvious plays in history,

A land war in Asia?

Exactly!

chiett: It's ALL Bush's fault ..... La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La ....
(fingers in ears)

And we could afford two wars how, exactly?

/If I've got a wobbly tower of blocks, and the next person adds slightly-more-wobbly blocks, then some kid comes along and punches the blocks while screaming about Chuck Norris, which of us knocked the tower over?

hurdboy: You're angry. Isn't that cute? Still doesn't change the fact that I support single-payer insurance

I'm not angry. Ignored it in the last post, but I guess I shouldn't have. At no point have I said you didn't support single-payer. At no point have I made any of this discussion about you, or about me, personally. I don't see why you've shifted from a discussion in which I'm disagreeing with your 'bsrb' line, into you getting defensive at first, and now lashing out with a personal attack.

This isn't about me, this isn't about you. If you want a name calling contest, find someone else.