comments

1. #1    On the elimination of Glass-Steagall, the vote was 90-8 in the Senate, and 362-57 in the House.
   http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354
   http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll570.xml
   
   And the next year, as a parting gift from the Clinton/Gore DLC gang of neoliberals (many now in the Obama administration) -- on the hideous Commodity Futures Modernization Act (which, among other horrors, exempted derivatives from regulation), the vote was UNANIMOUS CONSENT in the Senate, and in the House, 377-4.
   http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2000/roll540.xml
   written by nasrudin since 6 days 19 hours 20 minutes
2. #2    and Phil Gramm's wife was working for the commodities trading industry at the time.
   
   No surprise to see Chris Dodd's name as a "yea" vote. Does anyone take his current "reform" of the financial sector as anything but empty rhetoric designed to offset anger at him?
   written by matt since 6 days 11 hours 53 minutes
3. #3    ...and a big round of applause is due our President for hiring Larry Summers. Thanks, Barack!
   written by Alydar since 6 days 9 hours 41 minutes
4. #4    I don't think it was entirely the repeal of Glass-Steagall which caused the problem. However, when an investment bank 'goes public' and then continues to risk public investors money the same way they had risked their own private money then they have gone too far. They may say it was a culture thing, but the gov't must regulate them from risking public money that way without consequences. It was this public corporation investment bank which was the new thing with it's unexpected consequences.
   
   Second, the idea of "too big to fail" was taken to an extreme and perhaps even used by some CEOs who felt they could risk vast wealth with confidence the gov't would bail them out. Whether c...
   
   » ver todo el comentario
   written by MarkH since 5 days 13 hours 49 minutes

trackbacks

• (no trackbacks)
•  según Technorati