"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:04:52 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

I'm not simply claiming it--it's true. I've explained elsewhere why
that's
the case. And despite my repeated requests you have come forward with no
explanation whatever of any reason why the Glass-Steagall's replacement
by
Gramm-Leach_Bliley's holding company provisions had any impact on the
mortgage crisis. There's a whole universe of liberal blogs out there
making
that claim, and not a one that I've seen has come up with even a
semi-credible basis for it. They simply chant "deregulation" over and
over
like some magic incantation, apparently relying on the principle that if
you
repeat a lie often enough and loud enough people will eventually believe
it.


Yep, it's fantasy time for you. You need to stop listing to the
right-wingnut financiers.

Hey, Jon, I'm listening for you to supply that explanation. So far all I'm
getting is deafening silence.


"Few pin all the blame for the current crisis on the repeal of
Glass-Steagall or expect its wall of separation to return. Steven Kyle,
associate professor of economics at Cornell University, says re-imposing
that wall with the "sledgehammer or meat-axe approach of the 30s" would not
be advisable, but for Congress to have "cut that wall and replaced it with
nothing was a bad idea."

"There's no question in my mind that there was inadequate regulation which
led to this mess," says Kyle. "If you look at financial history, certainly
the private market does self-regulate, but with periodic crashes, and we
don't like that."

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com