Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsElizabeth Warren: ‘That’s the strongest argument for a modern Glass-Steagall’
Elizabeth Warren: Thats the strongest argument for a modern Glass-Steagall
Posted by Ezra Klein
Ezra Klein: So JP Morgan lost $2 billion. Theyre not asking for a bailout. Theyre not threatening to capsize either themselves or anyone else in the system. And so they say, and its not an entirely unfair question, why is this Elizabeth Warrens business, or the U.S. Congresss business? Isnt making bad investment decisions legal?
Elizabeth Warren: That is what Jamie Dimon has said. He says its stupid and sloppy but well fix it. So stay away. But what if the next loss is $20 billion or $200 billion? Is he saying JP Morgan should be entitled to continue to take these bets right up until the day it lands in the taxpayers lap again?
Banks are different than other kinds of companies. We learned that in 2008. They run the risk of bringing down our jobs, our pensions, our economy. The basic deal we made with them is they get to operate banks the things that take savings and investments and checking accounts and get a federal guarantee in return for submitting to substantial oversight to make sure their activities are safe.
<...>
EK: Do you support a modernized Glass-Steagall law?
EW: Yeah! Ive talked with Sen. Maria Cantwell from Washington State. Shes been working on that, and I think the debate should be on the table.
EK: What about breaking up the big banks?
EW: Youre approaching risk from two different directions. One is the risk of the activity. Thats the Volcker rule. The other direction is to say risk is an assumption of size. Community banks shouldnt have to deal with complex regulatory oversight, but the largest institutions should be subject to far more aggressive oversight and have to pay more for the protections they receive from the American taxpayer. Then shareholders may decide to invest in institutions that are not so large.
<...>
EK: Can Dodd-Frank work if its effectively implemented?
EW: I think Dodd-Frank is a strong bill that moves in the right direction. But the market keeps changing. The practices keep changing. The idea that well pass one law and then declare that problem is solved, well be back again in 50 years, just doesnt work anymore. We had a double problem here: Both deregulation and the failure to adapt to new financial conditions and products and practices. Thats what permitted risk to multiply in the system until it nearly brought the economy to its knees.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/elizabeth-warren-thats-the-strongest-argument-for-a-modern-glass-steagall/2012/05/14/gIQAfxTLPU_blog.html
Posted by Ezra Klein
Ezra Klein: So JP Morgan lost $2 billion. Theyre not asking for a bailout. Theyre not threatening to capsize either themselves or anyone else in the system. And so they say, and its not an entirely unfair question, why is this Elizabeth Warrens business, or the U.S. Congresss business? Isnt making bad investment decisions legal?
Elizabeth Warren: That is what Jamie Dimon has said. He says its stupid and sloppy but well fix it. So stay away. But what if the next loss is $20 billion or $200 billion? Is he saying JP Morgan should be entitled to continue to take these bets right up until the day it lands in the taxpayers lap again?
Banks are different than other kinds of companies. We learned that in 2008. They run the risk of bringing down our jobs, our pensions, our economy. The basic deal we made with them is they get to operate banks the things that take savings and investments and checking accounts and get a federal guarantee in return for submitting to substantial oversight to make sure their activities are safe.
<...>
EK: Do you support a modernized Glass-Steagall law?
EW: Yeah! Ive talked with Sen. Maria Cantwell from Washington State. Shes been working on that, and I think the debate should be on the table.
EK: What about breaking up the big banks?
EW: Youre approaching risk from two different directions. One is the risk of the activity. Thats the Volcker rule. The other direction is to say risk is an assumption of size. Community banks shouldnt have to deal with complex regulatory oversight, but the largest institutions should be subject to far more aggressive oversight and have to pay more for the protections they receive from the American taxpayer. Then shareholders may decide to invest in institutions that are not so large.
<...>
EK: Can Dodd-Frank work if its effectively implemented?
EW: I think Dodd-Frank is a strong bill that moves in the right direction. But the market keeps changing. The practices keep changing. The idea that well pass one law and then declare that problem is solved, well be back again in 50 years, just doesnt work anymore. We had a double problem here: Both deregulation and the failure to adapt to new financial conditions and products and practices. Thats what permitted risk to multiply in the system until it nearly brought the economy to its knees.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/elizabeth-warren-thats-the-strongest-argument-for-a-modern-glass-steagall/2012/05/14/gIQAfxTLPU_blog.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 1088 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (8)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Elizabeth Warren: ‘That’s the strongest argument for a modern Glass-Steagall’ (Original Post)
ProSense
May 2012
OP
ProSense
(116,464 posts)1. Kick! n/t
ProSense
(116,464 posts)2. Another! n/t
malaise
(268,885 posts)3. K & R - very important n/t
edhopper
(33,556 posts)4. It was clear from the moment the economic collapse happened
that the repeal of Glass/Stegall was a major factor in the events that lead up to the collapse.
A rational response would have been to fix the things that caused the problem.
It is one of the great failures of the Democrats that they did not even try to re-institute Glass/Stegall.