"Gogarty" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Yeah, Canada is a world leader in economics and banking. All five banks.

Yep. All five SOUND banks. Used to be 15,000 individual banks in the USA.
They
were kept honest by their local regulators and since the '30s were
forbidden
to be investment banks. In many states, i.e., Texas and Illinois, they
were
not even permitted to have branches and a stand-alone ATM was considered a
branch.It worked just fine. But the ABA finally prevailed on the
Republicans
to repeal Glass/Steagall, lots of other stuff went by the board (boat
reference) and the rest is disaster. You can quibbble about the details
but
that's the long and the short of it. So now you have the surviving
investment
banks turning themselves into deposit-taking commercial banks for their
own
protection -- under much more stringent regulation. They have fled to the
protective embrace of -- can it really be? -- THE GUMMINT!



When in doubt, blame the Democrats. That's the right-wingnuts' mantra... I
think they think it had something to do with Bill Clinton's blow job.

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

Gogarty wrote:
In article ,
says...

Yeah, Canada is a world leader in economics and banking. All five banks.

Yep. All five SOUND banks. Used to be 15,000 individual banks in the USA. They
were kept honest by their local regulators and since the '30s were forbidden
to be investment banks. In many states, i.e., Texas and Illinois, they were
not even permitted to have branches and a stand-alone ATM was considered a
branch.It worked just fine. But the ABA finally prevailed on the Republicans
to repeal Glass/Steagall, lots of other stuff went by the board (boat
reference) and the rest is disaster. You can quibbble about the details but
that's the long and the short of it. So now you have the surviving investment
banks turning themselves into deposit-taking commercial banks for their own
protection -- under much more stringent regulation. They have fled to the
protective embrace of -- can it really be? -- THE GUMMINT!

You forgot to mention that many states even forbid out-of-state
ownership of banks. Missouri immediately comes to mind. Otherwise a
fair assessment.

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:14:44 -0400, Gogarty said:

Yep. All five SOUND banks. Used to be 15,000 individual banks in the USA. They
were kept honest by their local regulators and since the '30s were forbidden
to be investment banks. In many states, i.e., Texas and Illinois, they were
not even permitted to have branches and a stand-alone ATM was considered a
branch.It worked just fine. But the ABA finally prevailed on the Republicans
to repeal Glass/Steagall, lots of other stuff went by the board (boat
reference) and the rest is disaster. You can quibbble about the details but
that's the long and the short of it.

You have the kernels of some correct ideas here. But most of it is nonsense
so far as the current crisis is concerned.


Of particular interest to you Dave: One of the reasons cited by the
World Economic Forum for rating Canada as having the soundest banking
system in the world was that we have very stringent government
regulation of banks and their practices. Ummm food for thought,,,
maybe sometimes government oversight can be a good thing?

Cheers
Martin

On Oct 10, 2:51*pm, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:48:58 -0700 (PDT), said:

How did "pressuring lenders to make loans to those unfit to pay them"
force Wall St corporate banks to extend their leverage on CDOs and
similar vehicles of unassessed risk?

Umm...I don't think he said it did.

Oh, did I miss something?
I thought *you* said the CRA was the cause... along with a lot of
other people saying it, to be fair.
But I don't hold it against you personally, Dave, it's the latest
verse of the right-right-wingers favorite song "blame-the-poor." You
just can't help singing along.

.... It simply created one of the key
ingredients for development of the perfect storm. Unquestionably excess
leverage on the part of investment banks also contributed. As did the
consolidation of both commercial banks and investment banking houses that's
been occurring for at least the last 40 years.

Yep again.

Dang, we should be in congress straightening this mess out.

My recommendation is to bring back public flogging. Put those AIG and
Bear-Stearns execs in the stocks and make an example of them. Maybe
some of the others, who deserve less harsh punishment, can just wear a
big red dollar sign on their shirts.

DSK

I completely disagree with both candidates saying that "this isn't the time
to start pointing fingers... about who's to blame." I think it *is* the
time, and the chips should fall where they may. CNN seems to be doing
this... IDing those who were responsible.

wrote in message
...
On Oct 10, 2:51 pm, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:48:58 -0700 (PDT), said:

How did "pressuring lenders to make loans to those unfit to pay them"
force Wall St corporate banks to extend their leverage on CDOs and
similar vehicles of unassessed risk?

Umm...I don't think he said it did.

Oh, did I miss something?
I thought *you* said the CRA was the cause... along with a lot of
other people saying it, to be fair.
But I don't hold it against you personally, Dave, it's the latest
verse of the right-right-wingers favorite song "blame-the-poor." You
just can't help singing along.

.... It simply created one of the key
ingredients for development of the perfect storm. Unquestionably excess
leverage on the part of investment banks also contributed. As did the
consolidation of both commercial banks and investment banking houses
that's
been occurring for at least the last 40 years.

Yep again.

Dang, we should be in congress straightening this mess out.

My recommendation is to bring back public flogging. Put those AIG and
Bear-Stearns execs in the stocks and make an example of them. Maybe
some of the others, who deserve less harsh punishment, can just wear a
big red dollar sign on their shirts.

DSK



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