PDA

View Full Version : Economics Glass-Steagall to be re-implemented???


petegz28
06-03-2010, 08:13 AM
Or a version thereof, at least. now known as "The Volcker Rule". Being reported on Bloomberg, the Financial Regulation Reform bill will be taken up again next week. A Democratic amendment that was left out of the senate bill that would prohibit banks from having their own proprietary trading desks looks to be back in the mix. This amendment would prohibit banks from having their own Prop. trading desks, owning private equity firms and hedge funds. Also there is talk that it will prohibit banks from taken sides against their clients aside from hedging.

Thsi is a good thing. This might be the first time in a while I have supported Democrats on an issue. This NEEDS to happen. Also, if the bill is implemented the rule will go into effect immediately. No "study period" as the senate bill calls for. This would force banks to start spinning off their Prop. desks ASAP.

banyon
06-03-2010, 08:17 AM
Good. I have no idea why taxpayers whould be subsidizing private speculation. This is overdue.

|Zach|
06-03-2010, 08:21 AM
Good news.

petegz28
06-03-2010, 09:36 AM
Good. I have no idea why taxpayers whould be subsidizing private speculation. This is overdue.

The funny part of that is, the banks didn't make the taxpayer bail them out. The Fed Gov allowed that to happen, regardless of reason.

The ironic, yet good thing I suppose, is that the same people that allowed the taxpayer to be put on the hook are fixing it. Or trying too.

Pants
06-03-2010, 10:49 AM
The funny part of that is, the banks didn't make the taxpayer bail them out. The Fed Gov allowed that to happen, regardless of reason.



Yes, because a collapsed economy is everyone's dream.

petegz28
06-03-2010, 11:14 AM
Yes, because a collapsed economy is everyone's dream.

Man, you really have a reading problem.

Fact: The Fed Gov is the ones that put the tax payer on the hook
FACT: I stated "regardless of reason"


Is that too complicated for you to understand?

googlegoogle
06-03-2010, 02:19 PM
How would this have stopped banks from making risky loans pushed by the government?

HonestChieffan
06-03-2010, 02:26 PM
How would this have stopped banks from making risky loans pushed by the government?

Therein is the bugaboo. Until Fannie and Freddie are totally investigated and the stupid regs that are forced under the banner of social benefits, this is all so much window dressing.

petegz28
06-03-2010, 03:26 PM
How would this have stopped banks from making risky loans pushed by the government?

Ok, for the 1,00000,0000,000 elventybillionth time, it was not the fact that risky loans were made. It was the fact they were securitised and sold off to the large investment companies.

petegz28
06-03-2010, 03:27 PM
Therein is the bugaboo. Until Fannie and Freddie are totally investigated and the stupid regs that are forced under the banner of social benefits, this is all so much window dressing.

I agree about Fannie and Freddie. But this bill is far from window dressing IF and only if the Volcker rule gets implemented. Otherwise yes, it is a bunch of crap.

HonestChieffan
06-03-2010, 03:29 PM
I agree about Fannie and Freddie. But this bill is far from window dressing IF and only if the Volcker rule gets implemented. Otherwise yes, it is a bunch of crap.

Its a long way from final, Dodds committee....shoot, ole chris aint gonna let anything by him that could hurt the boys.

petegz28
06-03-2010, 03:30 PM
Its a long way from final, Dodds committee....shoot, ole chris aint gonna let anything by him that could hurt the boys.

Dodd has already stated he will support adding the amendment.

HonestChieffan
06-03-2010, 03:33 PM
Dodd has already stated he will support adding the amendment.

And he probably believes in Santa. But That means nothing when the deals gettin done. If he agreed to add something you can bet something was taken out.

go bowe
06-03-2010, 09:44 PM
or something else was added?