commercial banking and financial banking. I will never trust her over Robert Reich.

He is one of the poors, in comparison to the many people who owe their good fortune/great fortunes to the Clintons

It's part of the new criteria for gauging the right candidate/worthy commentators, didn't you get the memo?

as part of his career that was already very successful before he became Clinton's Secretary of Labor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich

from investment banks. If the banks don't want the regulation, THEN WE NEED IT. Alan Greenspan thought that unregulated banks would self-regulate and be more efficient and that the extra profits would be shared with the investors (the People). Alan has admitted he fucked up. Greed makes "self-regulation" impossible. It's like letting children into a candy shop and telling them that if they only take a fair share, everyone would get some. Or having a football game without referees.

Interesting that H. Clinton agrees with the banks that they don't need the regulations. It's clearly quid pro quo for the donations they give her campaign, her foundation and her personal fortune.

Not doctors.
Not lawyers.
Nor politicians or the banking industry.

on edit, I wouldn't be surprised if HRC put him in her cabinet if she wins.

A history book?

President's Working Group on Financial Markets, November 1999:
Lawrence Summers, Treasury
Alan Greenspan, Fed
Arthur Levitt, SEC
William J Rainer, CFTC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

be more efficient and redistribute their wealth to investors shows that Greenspan is a sociopathic liar, or incompetent to the nth degree.

When have banks or any other large entity self-regulated without getting caught up in greed and corruption? Historically, banks have been the root cause of most of our economic depressions/recessions.

them, were just what the banks wanted to hear so he got elevated to the highest order.

Alan Greenspan says:
In 1963:

I think Alan Greenspan simply bought the Randian BS, and appeared to be stunned that it didn't work. I'm reading a fascinating new book by Kathryn Olmsted "Right Out Of California" that helps describe the financial roots of modern conservatism... Great read.

If integrity was cotton, you couldn't get enough from the banks to make a T-shirt for a piss ant!

I am pretty sure that was indeed the case...

Since, according to Ms. Rand, capitalists are a class of superior people, or Übermensch as Nietzsche called them, they make rational decisions, and since it would be irrational to game the market in their favor they would never do that.

It has only taken three and a half decades of voodoo economics to see how well that's worked. Deregulation has only brought about income inequality that threatens the very existence of the middle class, more pollution that it threatens the existence of coastal cities in the not-too-distant future, more political corruption and more banking fraud. John Galt was the product of a hack novelist and a real-life capitalist is no more superior or rational than you or I.

Hemingway was right. When the starry-eyed Fitzgerald proclaimed "the rich are different that you or I," the earthy Hemingway retorted, "Yes, they have money."

It's a power grab and it's nothing new. It's fascism.

It's just nonsense.

However, it will lead to fascism in at least some recognizable ways. I do not believe the level of income inequality and the levels of reduced opportunity can be maintained without a police state. In some respects, we already see the police state budding in NSA spying, war pimping by political leaders and the scapegoating of racial and religious minorities. We see one presidential candidate sicking his supporters on those who protest his candidacy. It is no exaggeration to say his reporters act like stormtroopers.

However, classical fascism was still a program where the government held the power and dictated to industry what they were going to do in order to make the nation great again, while what we have now is something very different but no more desirable. Corporate fascism is a program where private industry foots the bill for the politicians' campaigns and tells them what to do to maintain their exalted status results in bankers and industrialists setting the agenda for the government for the benefit of bankers and industrialists. In neither classical fascism or corporate fascism do the governed have anything to say and any popular movement that challenges the existing tyranny is be brutally suppressed.

Which is what the oligarchs are doing.

I agree that Ayn Rand's rational selfishness is nonsense. The real philosophical underpinning of this nation is something very different: enlightened self interest.

Before Mussolini coined the word fascism, it was called the Divine Right of Kings.

I'll at least agree with you that there's nothing enlightened about the self-interest of today's oligarchs.

Remember, Hitler spoke of "the big lie." The mythology was window dressing. Hitler was such a tyrant that his generals were afraid to wake him on D Day.

I'm not saying that either fascism or corporatism are good things, just different in fundamental ways. As for the Divine Right of Kings, the best thing even did to an absolute monarch was to remove his crown with the head that it sat on. However, absolut monarchy is a little different than classical fascism, too.

Learn to appreciate a little nuance, my friend.

I love the "It's all too complicated for you to understand" argument for keeping it like it is now.

Frankly, I don't see what's complicated about a bank using MY money to gamble WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. Shouldn't be allowed.

out of the gambling hells of Wall Street?

Anytime a politician or a so-called intellectual talks about multidimensional chess, he trying to disguise that he knows nothing about what he is saying. That not because he doesn't want his audience to think he's an ignorant fool, but because he doesn't want the subjects of the empire to know what he's saying.

you are trying to explain or justify the opposite.

Bring back Glass-Steagal!

Feel the BERN!

The Glass–Steagall section 20 separation of commercial and investment banking only effected 1 bank when signed and was writen by bankers

..... that it proved to be much more influential and much better than expected.

Most of it includes some form of backscratching and self interest along the way.

Christ these right-wing sounding criticisms of legitimate laws (or former laws) coming from Democrats is very disturbing.

Recession didn't mention Glass Steagall even once, so no, Reich and Sanders are WRONG.

would only cornfuse the movie goers. More importantly, was the movie in 3D?

Glass Steagal was originally established during the Great Depression. Global markets and the global economy have evolved considerably since that time. We need something robust for current economic realities rather than returning to relics of a bygone era in the global economy.

soon to be unaffiliated.

"We have to modernize those antiquated laws to address the realities of the global economy."

And, strangely, that always seems to end up benefiting the wealthy and powerful at the expense of average Americans and the poor.

Modernization is always good -- BUT NOT when it is simply buzzwords used to gloss over the imposition of right wing "free pirate market" corporate conservatism.

Or else the Fed will just cause another great recession to occur like the one they helped formulate in 2007.

Thanks for the thread, mmonk.

You've always been a clear thinker. When you compliment anything I've posted, I feel good.

Peace to you.

is right that Dood-Frank with Volcker Rule takes care of those issues, but additional legislation is needed. GS is a simpleton's answer to a much deeper issue.

then it's legislative removal was not necessary nor required such deliberation or "modernization". The problem is I'm not that naive. There was a deliberate purpose in removing it and I doubt it had anything to do with protecting the people's interest.

Joseph Stiglitz is just being a simpleton?

Does his argument hold no merit?

Joseph Eugene Stiglitz, ForMemRS,[2] FBA (born February 9, 1943) is an American economist and a professor at Columbia University. He is a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (2001) and the John Bates Clark Medal (1979). He is a former senior vice president and chief economist of the World Bank and is a former member and chairman of the (US president's) Council of Economic Advisers.[3][4] He is known for his critical view of the management of globalization, laissez-faire economists (whom he calls "free market fundamentalists&quot , and some international institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

In 2000, Stiglitz founded the Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD), a think tank on international development based at Columbia University. He has been a member of the Columbia faculty since 2001, received that university's highest academic rank (university professor) in 2003, and is the co-chair of the university's Committee on Global Thought. He also chairs the University of Manchester's Brooks World Poverty Institute as well as the Socialist International Commission on Global Financial Issues and is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. In 2009 the President of the United Nations General Assembly Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, appointed Stiglitz as the chairman of the U.N. Commission on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System, where he oversaw suggested proposals and commissioned a report on reforming the international monetary and financial system.[5] Since 2012 Stiglitz has been the president of the International Economic Association (IEA).[6] He presided over the organization of the IEA triennial world congress held near the Dead Sea in Jordan in June 2014.[7]

Based on academic citations, Stiglitz is the 4th most influential economist in the world today,[8] and in 2011 he was named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world.[9] Stiglitz's work focuses on income distribution, asset risk management, corporate governance, and international trade. He is the author of several books, the latest being The Great Divide: Unequal Societies and What We Can Do About Them (2015).[10]

(snip)

Awards and honours[edit]
In addition to being awarded the Nobel prize, Stiglitz has over 40 honorary doctorates and at least eight honorary professorships, as well as an honorary deanship.[68][69][70]

In 2011, he was named by Foreign Policy magazine on its list of top global thinkers.[71] In February 2012, he was awarded the Legion of Honor, in the rank of Officer, by the French ambassador in the United States François Delattre.[72] Stiglitz was elected a Foreign Member of the Royal Society (ForMemRS) in 2009.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz

"JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, there are many things. Glass-Steagall is one approach that I’ve increasingly come to. We actually don’t talk about it in the book. There are some other ways that we do focus on, on things like curbing their excessive risk taking."

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/10/27/nobel_laureate_joseph_stiglitz_on_rewriting


Again, I think he's saying GS is for simpletons, because there is much more that needs to be done and things can be done in different ways besides just reinstating an old, limited law.


Here's another analysis:

" . . . . . . Framing the discussion around Glass-Steagall leads us to act as if nothing has
changed in banking regulation since 2008, which could hardly be further from
the truth. The Dodd-Frank Act made dozens of major changes and hundreds of
minor ones, many of which have yet to be implemented but are on their way.
Discussions of “breaking up the banks” or “ending TBTF” should begin with
what Dodd-Frank did on these fronts, rather than starting from either of the (equally oblivious) premises of “everything in Dodd-Frank is an incoherent
disaster” or “Dodd-Frank did nothing to rein in the big banks.”37
Along with the aforementioned Volcker rule, which could clearly be
strengthened through targeted amendments if reformers believe the final rule
has too many exemptions, Dodd-Frank also creates a Financial Stability
Oversight Council (FSOC) with significant discretionary powers to wield an
Orderly Liquidation Authority; addresses capital requirements; and creates an
Office of Financial Research charged with independently monitoring systemic
stability. These are all potent tools for keeping banks (and systemically
important non-bank entities, which were previously unregulated) safe and
dismantling those determined to be unsafe. Reformers miss a golden
opportunity if they ignore ways to improve these policies in favor of making
grand pronouncements about Glass-Steagall. . . . . . .

"The surge of interest in bringing back Glass-Steagall speaks to the
understandable persistence of concerns about the safety and soundness of our
banking system. There are ample reasons for these concerns, but I have argued
that the focus on Glass-Steagall is largely misguided. Reformers should turn
their energies elsewhere. . . . . ."

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/9/13-glass-steagal-wallach/13-glass-steagall-wallach.pdf




IMO, the simpleton's approach goes over very well for Sanders, but that doesn't mean it accomplish anything. Maybe he's more nuanced elsewhere, but his public pronouncements, and much of the support for GS here, are a simpleton's approach.

Glass Steagall is still critical to the mindset of what banking should be.

"JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, there are many things. Glass-Steagall is one approach that I’ve increasingly come to. We actually don’t talk about it in the book. There are some other ways that we do focus on, on things like curbing their excessive risk taking."

If I really want a candidate who doesn't want to reinstate Glass-Steagall, I can vote for a more bonafide Republican than Mrs. Clinton.

The Glass-Steagall Act was in place for a period in which there were no major banking crises because banks were leagally prevented from making risky investments with their saver's money.

Not only would I say Glass-Steagall should be reinstated, but every word of Gramm-Leach-Bliley should be repealed, and then we'll still by Legs Dimon and Pretty Boy Lloyd in the slammer for banking fraud.

No one who is not in favor of reinstating Glass-Steagal, starting with Hillary Clinton,l is serious about fixing what's wrong with America's financial institutions.

know what Glass Steagal is, nor do many know what
it means that we went from bail-out to bail-in.

The peoples' interest is secondary.

much more than GS.

John Reed:

As I have reflected about the years since 1999, I think the lessons of Glass-Steagall and its repeal suggest that the universal banking model is inherently unstable and unworkable. No amount of restructuring, management change or regulation is ever likely to change that.


http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/12/investing/citigroup-john-reed-glass-steagall/

Sandy Weil:

“What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking, have banks be deposit takers, have banks make commercial loans and real estate loans, have banks do something that’s not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that’s not too big to fail,” Weill told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48315170

Naive simpletons I guess who don't really understand the realities of our wonderful global economy I guess.

He moved beyond acting to see serious success later in life as a money manager and investor. In 1988 and 1990, he appeared as an expert witness before the House Judiciary Committee to speak in favor of maintaining the Glass-Steagall banking laws of the 1930s. In recent years he was a regular panelist on the Fox News stock investment show "Cashin' In."

Rogers is survived by his wife Amy, two children, Bill and Laura, and four grandchildren.

Will Robert Reich be the next Secretary of Labor? He's definitely the right man for the job.