• About
  • Contact
  • Editorial
  • Policies
  • Archives
Angry Bear
Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.
  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics
« Back

Glass-Steagall reconsidered

Dan Crawford | December 17, 2009 6:22 am

Economic Populist points us to consideration of re-instating the Glass-Steagall Act.

Plain vanilla banking at a tidy profit for regular banking functions is still a good idea.

Comments (15) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
15 Comments
  • Margery Meanwell says:
    December 17, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    Volker: return things to where they were before the banking euphoria and hysteria took hold. We have no need for the “financial innovators” who have done nothing but damage to our economy. As Buffett so wittily put it: “Beware Geeks bearing formulas.”

  • Margery Meanwell says:
    December 17, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    Sorry forgot the link:

    http://baselinescenario.com/2009/12/17/paul-volcker-picks-up-a-bat/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BaselineScenario+%28The+Baseline+Scenario%29

  • VtCodger says:
    December 17, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    But … but … plain vanilla banking is so 19th cenury.  Not innovative at all.  And probably any college graduate could run a simple bank.  IF ANYONE CAN RUN A BANK, WHERE ARE THE BONUSES GOING TO COME FROM?   This communist, socialist, idea must be nipped in the bud.

  • CoRev says:
    December 17, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    Codger, I agree!  No rational decisions to make banking more controlled and perhaps safer!   No!  No! No!  It must be wide open dealing in paper products of no or dubious value.

  • save_the_rustbelt says:
    December 17, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    Problem is, banks do a lousy job of plain vanilla  banking at a profit. The bankers are too used to the adreneline rush of high finance.

  • Margery Meanwell says:
    December 17, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    If you taxed away the absurd amounts made by “financial innovators” there would be no incentive to “innovate”. You know. a 70% levy on all income over say one million or, maybe to be nice to people who built themsevles a palace and need to pay the mortage, two million. Of course it would be useful to the country to divert the money spent on palaces to better more equitable ends. So let’s tax palaces worth over 2.5 million with a yearly “excess real estate value” tax of, say 25% in addition.

  • Margery Meanwell says:
    December 17, 2009 at 2:39 pm

    If you want to know what I mean by “palaces” check out the one owned by Candy Spelling in Bel Air. I think she has it on the market for 65 million. She has moved instead into a duplex or triplex or sexplex that cost maybe 35 million. Downsizing, you know.

  • Margery Meanwell says:
    December 17, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    Oh gee, I made a mistake. She is asking 150 million. A thousand pardons.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/28/business/fi-candy28

  • Lyle says:
    December 17, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    The departing CEO of wells said he would not have gone into traditional banking because it was to dull. Maybe we need dull bankers, banking where you take deposits at 3% make loans at 6% and are on the Golf Course by 3 pm. Note that back then investment banks were partnerships so you put your entire net worth on the line when you got to partnership. Lets cut the proprietary trading (and market making) into partnerships. Banks can be order takers for buying and selling stocks and bonds (just that order takers only). Change the IPO/market model to take the investment bank out of the chain, its just a marketer, the deal is issuer to final purchaser. With modern tech you could do a reverse auction, i.e. starting at the highest bid, go down the list adding the amount at each price point until you reach the number offered. That is the price everyone pays for the offereing.

  • Terry says:
    December 17, 2009 at 6:25 pm

    Not only can any reasonably intelligent college grad run a bank with the Glass Steagall wall, but all the reasonably intelligent college grads who are running banks will not get in way over their heads. The too big to fail problem is different, but there are a lot of smaller banks who could have weathered the last couple of years if Glass Steagall had not been repealed. I also am on record numerous times that high marginal tax rates on extraordinary incomes would not only do a lot to solve the bonus problem, but would also reduce the incentive to gamble with other people’s money.

  • MG says:
    December 18, 2009 at 1:23 am

    It would be great if there was a big push across the nation to make this happen.  Imagine the level of Wall Street lobbying that would unfold in Washington, D.C..  Money would be flying all over the place. 

  • Cantab says:
    December 18, 2009 at 9:53 am

    Margery,

    As Buffett so wittily put it: “Beware Geeks bearing formulas.”

    This sounds like sound advice but the choice on whether or not to use the Geeks formulus should be the choice of the individual decision makers at whatever institution that wants to consider geek work product. In general more choice makes you richer and less mekes you poorer. The is why I don’t want politicians making taking our choices away from us

  • Cantab says:
    December 18, 2009 at 1:35 pm

    Margery, 
     
    As Buffett so wittily put it: “Beware Geeks bearing formulas.” 
     
    This sounds like sound advice but the choice on whether or not to use the Geeks formulus should be the choice of the individual decision makers at whatever institution that wants to consider geek work product. In general more choice makes you richer and less mekes you poorer. The is why I don’t want politicians taking our choices away from us

  • Jack says:
    December 18, 2009 at 10:19 pm

    Recent articles in the media, like this one in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/business/16goldman.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Goldman%20Sachs&st=cse, portray Goldman Sachs as a true example of the greatness of capitalist ingenuity and the rewards it provides.  But no where in those articels is there an in depth discussion of the unfair advantages enjoyed by GS.  Some examples left out of that NY Times piece:  Blankfein sits in on Treasury and Fed discussions regarding saving the system;  programmed trading schemes that give GS, and other big trading houses a quick peek at the orders flowing through the market JIT to make quick trades based on that information; GS employees are described as “goiing into government service”  as though GS gains no benefit from their key employees and partners being sprinkled through out the regulatory agencies.

    They enjoy an insidious  position in the financial sector and the media describes their success as the result on genious and hard work.  There is genious at work all right, but it isn’t clearly a genious of a professional kind.

  • Margery Meanwell says:
    December 19, 2009 at 5:41 pm

    The point being that Geek formulas have proven simply to make tons of money for the Geeks and their followers (later dupes) at the risk of the solvency of institutions. When those go belly up the malaise spread far and wide. Hence it is NOT just up to the institutions as we should have learned by now. Though the Geeks and their profiteers don’t want that lesson learned. Individual decisions can impact lots of innocent people who are hurt. The fact that the rich don’t care is simply a testimony to their evil nature.

Featured Stories

Index of leading indicators says recession almost certain; so what of the coincident indicators?

NewDealdemocrat

Extending Capital to Nature, Reducing Nature to Capital

Peter Dorman

Trump and the debt ceiling

Eric Kramer

And the King of Coincident Indicators rolls over

NewDealdemocrat

Contributors

Dan Crawford
Robert Waldmann
Barkley Rosser
Eric Kramer
ProGrowth Liberal
Daniel Becker
Ken Houghton
Linda Beale
Mike Kimel
Steve Roth
Michael Smith
Bill Haskell
NewDealdemocrat
Ken Melvin
Sandwichman
Peter Dorman
Kenneth Thomas
Bruce Webb
Rebecca Wilder
Spencer England
Beverly Mann
Joel Eissenberg

Subscribe

Blogs of note

    • Naked Capitalism
    • Atrios (Eschaton)
    • Crooks and Liars
    • Wash. Monthly
    • CEPR
    • Econospeak
    • EPI
    • Hullabaloo
    • Talking Points
    • Calculated Risk
    • Infidel753
    • ACA Signups
    • The one-handed economist
Angry Bear
Copyright © 2023 Angry Bear Blog

Topics

  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics
  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics

Pages

  • About
  • Contact
  • Editorial
  • Policies
  • Archives