ANSWERS: 3
  • If McCain voted to end this protection...He has NO CHANCE of getting my vote ever for any office. Bill Clinton should be tarreed and feathered out of Washington and Harlem.
  • "The limitations of the GSA on the banking sector sparked a debate over how much restriction is healthy for the industry. Many argued that allowing banks to diversify in moderation offers the banking industry the potential to reduce risk, so the restrictions of the GSA could have actually had an adverse effect, making the banking industry riskier rather than safer. Furthermore, big banks of the post-Enron market are likely to be more transparent, lessening the possibility of assuming too much risk or masking unsound investment decisions. As such, reputation has come to mean everything in today's market, and that could be enough to motivate banks to regulate themselves. Consequently, to the delight of many in the banking industry (not everyone, however, was happy), in November of 1999 Congress repealed the GSA with the establishment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which eliminated the GSA restrictions against affiliations between commercial and investment banks. Furthermore, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allows banking institutions to provide a broader range of services, including underwriting and other dealing activities." ~ http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp?Page=2
  • Because it was a false protection - it did not fix the problem it was supposed to fix. The four big investment banks, the ones that Glass Steagal created to be diffeernt commercial banks have either failed, been take over, or turned themselves into mixed banks. It is widely believed amongst financial theorists that the reason for the Depression was that goverment dod exactly the *wrong* thing in response to the Crash of 1929. They responded to the fire going out by pouring water on it. The allegedly correct respons is to put a bit more fuel on.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy