Log in

View Full Version : Glass-Steagall: Dead for 2 Decades and Counting



Dean
11th April 2011, 23:09
Glass-Steagall: Dead for 2 Decades and Counting (http://thethinred.blogspot.com/2011/04/glass-steagall-dead-for-2-decades-and.html)

Painstakingly researched, guys. Always surprised at how many persistent empires you find contemporary links to in historical research.

In 1996, Greenspan gave the Federal Reserve Board the green light to change the practices governing commercial bank holding companies. Under Glass-Steagall, they could only invest up to 5% in investment banks (due to the added risk). Greenspan quickly doubled this limit twice: first to 10%, and then to 25%. 8 months later, another decision opened the doors to insurance underwriting, allowing Traver's (under the management of Sandy Weill, who had already unsuccessfully tried to acquire JP Morgan) to acquire Solomon Brothers. Less than a year later, Traveler's merged with Citicorp.1

Enter the beast: a bank which merged securities underwriting, insurance underwriting and commercial banking - precisely the amalgamation which ushered in the banking instability of the early 1900s - only this time, the publicians had a new motto: too big to fail. Perhaps more ominous is the name itself though: Citicorp, now Citigroup Inc., was once known as National City Bank, variously administered by James Stillman (who managed the bank in his retirement via discrete courier), Charles E Mitchell (touted in 1933: "Mitchell more than any 50 men is responsible for this stock crash" -Carter Glass).2 Mitchell was also on the board of directors for American IG Farben3 (a pharmaceuticals combine which produced Zyclon B for the Nazis), which cartelized with Standard Oil New Jersey with the help of a 30 Million bond from National City Bank.2,4

...

Weill called Robert Rubin, then Treasury Secretary, to inform him of his plans to merge Salomon-Smith Barney and Citicorp - a deal being held up by stubborn Glass-Steagall provisions. Rubin Quipped to Weill, "you're buying the government." A year later, Glass-Steagall was finally repealed under Gramm-Leach-Bliley. 2 days later, perhaps as a show of confidence in the new "owners of the government," Robert Rubin left the Treasury to take an executive position under Weill.

Drosophila
12th April 2011, 00:40
Why is this in "opposing ideologies"?

Dean
12th April 2011, 03:34
Why is this in "opposing ideologies"?

Its a critique of capitalist crises?

Drosophila
13th April 2011, 02:58
I don't get why Clinton repealed GS. It probably would have prevented the 2007 depression.

Red Commissar
13th April 2011, 03:03
I don't get why Clinton repealed GS. It probably would have prevented the 2007 depression.

I think we would have seen it happen anyways even with out Glass-Steagall being repealed. It certainly played a major role, but it was not the only factor. Plus it wasn't as if it was on the outs already- it would have had to started long before this certain act. Like the OP's article opens with,


Clinton's 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall was hardly a repeal at all. In fact, it was just the dying breath of legislation that had been steadily eroded for decades...

And goes on to say,


In 1998 Glass-Steagall was gasping its dying breath - nearly all of the major regulatory provisions had been scrapped, and its complete repeal was in the works...

It was just the nail in the coffin.

Dean
13th April 2011, 05:50
I don't get why Clinton repealed GS. It probably would have prevented the 2007 depression.
There has been an ongoing trend of market deregulation since at least the 70s. Clinton was responding to demand in the banking industry.

RGacky3
13th April 2011, 07:12
The Crash would have still happened, but it would have been much less severe. Alot of economics call for it to be re-instated, but it won't be, at least not by Obama, braking up banks, can you imagen Obama doing anything even close?

Ismail
15th April 2011, 13:53
Lyndon LaRouche and his group practically state that a re-institution of Glass-Steagall will save the whole of humanity. Sure GS is nice, but don't be like the LaRouchites (or "left-of-center" liberals) and treat it as something that prevents the internal dynamics of capitalism itself from causing economic crises.

Dean
15th April 2011, 15:48
Lyndon LaRouche and his group practically state that a re-institution of Glass-Steagall will save the whole of humanity. Sure GS is nice, but don't be like the LaRouchites (or "left-of-center" liberals) and treat it as something that prevents the internal dynamics of capitalism itself from causing economic crises.

The Crash would have still happened, but it would have been much less severe. Alot of economics call for it to be re-instated, but it won't be, at least not by Obama, braking up banks, can you imagen Obama doing anything even close?

I haven't fully articulated my ideas on the accumulation of capital, but the above discussion will eventually serve as part of a framework on one. As I give a little credence to above, the consolidation of firms were a major aspect of the drive to repeal a number of financial rules contained therein.

I agree that the crash would have still occurred. As we saw, all but the most direct mergers were able to be done by working around glass-steagall. A major factor of this, which I hope to describe at some point (though it is a rather vague topic) is the evolution of capitalist business models. If GS were re-introduced tomorrow, it would take a matter of months for capital to bypass the last 80 years of struggle against regulation.

I view it as the capitalists largely discovering the inter power-plays that the state are vulnerable to, and other 'tricks' that allow them to bypass stumbling blocks on the road to capital accumulation. It's like an algebra test - keep giving someone who doesn't know the curriculum the same test and a strong incentive to solve it, and eventually they will find the answers themselves. Then give it to them again and its hardly a barrier at all.

RGacky3
16th April 2011, 09:20
I kind of agree, except loop holes are almost always put in on purpose, I think people give too much credit to corporations for being so smart that they find loop holes, mostly they just pressure congress to put in loopholes so that congress can look progressive to the voters while really doing nothing.

Glass Steagall would make a real difference, it would be noticable, obviously there are ways around that, such as really loose inter-bank credit lines, but it makes it much harder and when you have different interests going it might make it not as profitable.

Ultimately you need a non-profit banking system that is publically accountable, but until then regulation will help, but its a constant constant battle.