General Discussion

babylonsister

(171,086 posts) Tue Jul 21, 2015, 08:15 PM Jul 2015

Barney Frank: Warren wrong on Glass-Steagall

Barney Frank: Warren wrong on Glass-Steagall
By Kevin Cirilli - 07/21/15 02:45 PM EDT

Former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) says Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is wrong for seeking to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, a Great Depression-era law that divided commercial and investment banking, as a means to break up the biggest banks.

Frank co-authored the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law and now sits on the board of directors at Signature Bank. He said that Warren's bid to bring back Glass-Steagall isn't the right prescription to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis.

He praised Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton for recent remarks indicating that more financial regulation might be needed.

"I do think further steps are wise, as Hillary Clinton has talked about, for de-complicating some of these large financial institutions. But going to {Glass-Steagall} and doing that in a uniform way that applies to every financial institution is not the best way to do it," Frank told The Hill in an interview.

Warren reintroduced legislation to bring back the landmark statute earlier this month with Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Angus King (I-Maine) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.).

"Even if we did Glass-Steagall, you'd still have institutions that are too big to fail," Frank said earlier Tuesday during an economic forum hosted by center-left think tank Third Way.

more...

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/248674-barney-frank-warren-wrong-on-glass-steagall

23 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Barney Frank: Warren wrong on Glass-Steagall (Original Post) babylonsister Jul 2015 OP

Glass-Steagall would have helped but would not have prevented the fall of banks, Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #1

Glass Steagall prevented banks from gambling with depositors' money Warpy Jul 2015 #2

New 21st Century Glass Steagall Act udbcrzy2 Jul 2015 #4

Morgan Stanley and Merryl Lynch are now owned hughee99 Jul 2015 #6

Because it would let taxpayers off the hook for bad investments Cosmic Kitten Jul 2015 #12

+1 It also takes the FDIC away from the gamblers so that we do not have to bail them out. jwirr Jul 2015 #21

Barney Frank is recalcitrant to change Cosmic Kitten Jul 2015 #3

Really? Oye. nt babylonsister Jul 2015 #8

REALLY! Did you read the OP? Cosmic Kitten Jul 2015 #11

He's "recalcitrant to change"? pnwmom Jul 2015 #14

Oh, I see the confusion here Cosmic Kitten Jul 2015 #15

Rumblethump, rumblethump? MADem Jul 2015 #5

Of course they will! nt babylonsister Jul 2015 #9

He's right. Dodd-Frank, with Volcker rule, pretty much cover the bases. Hoyt Jul 2015 #7

Agreed. n/t tammywammy Jul 2015 #17

Yep. Senator Warren is grandstanding on this but her Popcorn 51 Jul 2015 #10

i guess Barney's cashing in. CentralMass Jul 2015 #13

What a revealing thing to say. Octafish Jul 2015 #16

Good reminder as always Hydra Jul 2015 #19

Money as the Mother's Milk of Politics is no way to run a democracy. Octafish Jul 2015 #20

I wonder if it's merely a coincidence that hughee99 Jul 2015 #18

Nah. elias49 Jul 2015 #22

Those that support corporate control because it helps with money will still say that despite facts mmonk Jul 2015 #23

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)

1. Glass-Steagall would have helped but would not have prevented the fall of banks,

Reply to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 08:22 PM

Jul 2015

improving Dodd-Frank to cover more issues would be a better move.

Warpy

(111,338 posts)

2. Glass Steagall prevented banks from gambling with depositors' money

Reply to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 08:42 PM

Jul 2015

by separating the gambling institutions, the brokerages, away from them.

This is the point, not ending "too big to fail."

Obviously, antitrust legislation has to be enforced to do that.

Glass Steagall just kept our savings safe.

udbcrzy2

(891 posts)

4. New 21st Century Glass Steagall Act

Reply to Warpy (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 08:45 PM

Jul 2015

If he is talking about the original one? I thought that was why they came up with a better one.

Our new 21st Century Glass Steagall Act once again separates traditional banks from riskier financial services. And since banking has become much more complicated since the first bill was written in 1933, we’ve updated the law to include new activities and leave no room for regulatory interpretations that water down the rules.

The bill will give a five year transition period for financial institutions to split their business practices into distinct entities – shrinking their size, taking an important step toward ending “Too Big to Fail” once and for all, and minimizing the risk of future bailouts.

http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/s/glass-steagall

hughee99

(16,113 posts)

6. Morgan Stanley and Merryl Lynch are now owned

Reply to Warpy (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 09:00 PM

Jul 2015

By commercial banks, and those banks are on the hook for the investment bank's risk, aren't they?

Even if it wouldn't have prevented the 2008 crash, I have yet to hear someone clearly explain why bringing Glass-Steagall back is a bad thing.

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)

12. Because it would let taxpayers off the hook for bad investments

Reply to hughee99 (Reply #6)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 09:37 PM

Jul 2015

Think like a 3rd-Wayer.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall greased the skids
for taxpayer bailouts of the mortgage and securities fraud.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)

21. +1 It also takes the FDIC away from the gamblers so that we do not have to bail them out.

Reply to Warpy (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 22, 2015, 11:36 AM

Jul 2015

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)

3. Barney Frank is recalcitrant to change

Reply to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 08:44 PM

Jul 2015

He's feathering his nest for retirement.

We can't expect him to take on the
Big Money interests that will fund
his retirement portfolio.

babylonsister

(171,086 posts)

8. Really? Oye. nt

Reply to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 09:26 PM

Jul 2015

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)

11. REALLY! Did you read the OP?

Reply to babylonsister (Reply #8)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 09:34 PM

Jul 2015

Barney "now sits on the board of directors at Signature Bank"

He praised Democratic presidential front-runner
Hillary Clinton for recent remarks indicating that
more financial regulation might be needed.

Barney thinks more regulation "might" be needed!?!
That's a HUGE Oye!

"Even if we did Glass-Steagall, you'd still have institutions that are too big to fail," Frank said earlier Tuesday during an economic forum hosted by center-left think tank Third Way.

Barney is speaking before a group of Wall st cronies,
and suggest that more regulation "might" be needed!

Yeah, Barney is taking a bold stand there against
the people who ruined the economy, and the lives
of millions of people <sarcasm thingy>

We can do better

pnwmom

(108,991 posts)

14. He's "recalcitrant to change"?

Reply to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 09:55 PM

Jul 2015

Dictionary.com:

adjective
1.
resisting authority or control; not obedient or compliant; refractory.
2.
hard to deal with, manage, or operate.
noun
3.
a recalcitrant person.

Yeah, right. Whatever that is supposed to mean.

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)

15. Oh, I see the confusion here

Reply to pnwmom (Reply #14)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 10:08 PM

Jul 2015

Barney is not "recalcitrant" to the
status quo, from which he draws
his income.

I was looking at this from the
POV held by 99% of humanity.

Simple misunderstanding

MADem

(135,425 posts)

5. Rumblethump, rumblethump?

Reply to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 08:46 PM

Jul 2015

Will DU throw Barney under the bus, I wonder?

Interesting interview, and Barney looks well rested.

babylonsister

(171,086 posts)

9. Of course they will! nt

Reply to MADem (Reply #5)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 09:26 PM

Jul 2015

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)

7. He's right. Dodd-Frank, with Volcker rule, pretty much cover the bases.

Reply to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 09:08 PM

Jul 2015

tammywammy

(26,582 posts)

17. Agreed. n/t

Reply to Hoyt (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 10:34 PM

Jul 2015

Popcorn 51

(84 posts)

10. Yep. Senator Warren is grandstanding on this but her

Reply to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 09:34 PM

Jul 2015

heart is in the right place.

CentralMass

(15,265 posts)

13. i guess Barney's cashing in.

Reply to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 09:53 PM

Jul 2015

Octafish

(55,745 posts)

16. What a revealing thing to say.

Reply to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 10:15 PM

Jul 2015

Barney was one of the most active proponents of the original $700 billion cash Bankster Bailout of 2008.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., one of the main congressional negotiators, dismissed the GOP claim that Pelosi's speech was responsible for Republicans voting against the bill. "Because somebody hurt their feelings, they decided to hurt the country," Frank said. "That's not plausible."

...

Added Frank: "Today is the decision day. If we defeat this bill today, it will be a very bad day for the financial sector of the American economy."

SOURCE: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/

Thank goodness we got to audit every penny, right?

Hydra

(14,459 posts)

19. Good reminder as always

Reply to Octafish (Reply #16)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 11:44 PM

Jul 2015

Octafish

(55,745 posts)

20. Money as the Mother's Milk of Politics is no way to run a democracy.

Reply to Hydra (Reply #19)

Wed Jul 22, 2015, 08:54 AM

Jul 2015

The things money forces people to do, like Buy Partisanship.

UBS loves both Phil Gramm and Bill Clinton. Since the repeal of Glass-Steagal, they've started to specialize in the field of "Wealth Management" together, I kid you not.

http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html