It seems fairly obvious in hindsight that Glass Steagal was good legislation. It led to a 60+ year period of extended prosperity, and the greatest economy in the world. Once it was repealed, it set us up for a global financial crisis a decade later.
It seems fairly obvious in hindsight that Glass Steagal was good legislation. It led to a 60+ year period of extended prosperity, and the greatest economy in the world. Once it was repealed, it set us up for a global financial crisis a decade later.
Can it? Because none of the banks who initially failed would have been firewalled by Glass-Steagal. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG...none of these were deposit-taking institutions.
The problem erupted from corn-fed mortgages, something Glass-Steagall wouldn't have saved us from. This isn't just my opinion. Most economists see Gramm-Leach-Bliley (the Act that repealed Glass-Steagall) as having had a minor effect, at most, on the 2008 financial crisis [1].
[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/...
The RBS failed entirely because of foolish investments. Funding covered the cracks till it dried up.
Fred the Shred (RBS CEO) invested billions in toxic assets worldwide - his last act was to buy an investment bank full of them.
He still walked away with bonuses, though now the taxpayer paid for his golden parachute.
Your linked article itself tells that Geithner and his ilk admit to securitization being at the heart of the crisis, saying that "other factors were more important in causing the 2008 crisis, such as bad mortgage underwriting, poor work by the ratings agencies and a securitization market gone crazy."
But strangely, they write this as a defense of Glass-Steagall's repeal, as if those factors came from nowhere. In fact, those factors were the specific result of the efforts by the largest banks to sell as many of their banking products as possible--and offload as much of their risk as possible--through their investment banking and securities divisions. Many suspect that some banks took advantage of the inherent opacity of mortgage-backed-securities to knowingly hide bad assets (and possibly even fraudulent, non-existant assets) and sell them to unsuspecting securities buyers at fraudulently inflated prices.
Would securitization have become such a problem if the repeal of Glass Steagall hadn't effectively pushed all of the money center banks to acquire or build their own investment banks? Would it have been so easy for bad actors to have committed fraud in this area if it wasn't so easy to keep everything "in house"?
The main reason that Glass-Steagal was enacted in 1933 was because the Crash of 1929 was in-part caused by Banks' selling over-hyped, over-priced securities to ordinary, unsophisticated banking consumers. OK, so it happened in the reverse this time. That doesn't mean that the crisis wouldn't have been prevented by the same firewall, had it existed, from 2003-2006.
Yes, none of the institutions that failed initially were deposit taking. But maybe that was because this time around they were the outsiders and the rubes. Who had a better sense of what kind of risk mortgage-backed-securities actually represented, than the people who were originating them?
Glass-Steagal never envisioned the Rube Goldberg tower of cards this market created, with many transactions being so complex that they resist analysis.
>This can really be traced back to the repeal of Glass Steagal.
The evidence against this hypothesis is that Canada did not have Glass Steagal (or legislation similar to it), and yet they were not harmed by the financial crisis nearly as much. The banks were smart enough to not invest so deeply in mortgage backed securities.Speaking of the popular "austerity ruins the economy", Canada ran a budget surplus during the crisis, enabling them to weather the financial crisis quite well.
Keeping an eye on the accounting books is always a good idea.
"austerity ruins the economy"
to the most precise
"austerity ruins an economy, if it's not ridding a commodities boom at the time, and you don't have a private debt grow for compensating what the government is not spending."
There was extensive stimulus spending that led to very high deficits during that period.
We had a budget surplus in the decade prior to the crisis, but not right before, and once the Harper gov't took power it slashed revenue through a bunch of tax cuts and then once the crisis hit the opposition demanded stimulus spending or it would bring the gov't down (minority parliament at the time).
And while Canada was "riding a commodity boom" at the time this hardly helped anybody east of Saskatchewan or west of Alberta. You could argue it helped their investments but you'd also be wrong, in 2008 the stock market tumbled the same here as everyone else, including energy stocks.
According to this link, the Canada Federal Budget appears to have been in surplus during 2007-2008 crisis.
Deficits came later.
Their previous fiscal prudence mitigated the problems that struck Italy, Greece and the United States.
Cutting your tax revenue isn't fiscal prudence. It's letting ideology triumph over reality. Harper never met a surplus he didn't throw away.
And the American people are about to elect back into the White House the couple that presided over the repeal of the Glass Steagal Act.
So much for learned lessons.
He still shouldn't have signed it, but to blame this law on the Clintons is really not being honest.