Obama to propose new limits bank size, "return to the spirit of Glass-Seagall"

[Lief 🗽]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704320104575015910344117800.html

Hopefully he 1) Actually follows through and 2) Makes a big deal out of this and the Republicans who vote against it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

oh, that will really help the economy....example, let's see, Citigroup itself has already let go 100,000 employees, and now Obama wants them to fire another 100,000

it may be popular initially, but we'll see how popular he is when unemployment remains above 9% come Nov 2010

and where is Obama's treasury Secretary...didn't Geithner used to run the FOMC?  the dude has become a total political hack

[Cubby]

This is great news. Glass-Steagall never should have ended in the first place.

[memphis]

Good. Too big to fail=too big to exist.

[opebo]

I'm sure everyone will agree that the idea that the US government, in the current political climate, could actually regulate banks or other large corporations (at least in the sense of making do that which the do not wish), is laughable.  Its like saying the valet will regulate his master's choice of socks.

[Torie]

I strongly agree with Obama on this. I would like to never have to see a repeat of the "too big to fail" syndrome. It has become clear that certain activities of banks cause them to incur too much risk causing them to fail when the economy takes a dump, and given the central role banks have in shaping the macro economic environment (including the size of the money supply among other things - it goes up when they lend, and down when they don't), those activities need to be separated from lending and any money which has FDIC insurance.

  I am sure most would agree with me on this, no?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I strongly agree with Obama on this. I would like to never have to see a repeat of the "too big to fail" syndrome.  I am sure most would agree with me on this, no?

Yes, duh. 

[Rowan]

The stock market LOVES this today.

[memphis]

The stock market LOVES this today.

This, or a hundred other things. OMG, the market's been in a two day slump since Brown was elected.

[Lunar]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Tough_week.html

This morning, the White House announces, on the front page of the Times and elsewhere, that it's headed for open conflict with the banks.

A few hours later, the Supreme Court rules that the banks can spend their money for the first time in decades campaigning against him and his candidates.

[Franzl]

I strongly support this.

[Lief 🗽]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Tough_week.html

This morning, the White House announces, on the front page of the Times and elsewhere, that it's headed for open conflict with the banks.

A few hours later, the Supreme Court rules that the banks can spend their money for the first time in decades campaigning against him and his candidates.

It's a pretty screwed up country we live in that in November banks will be running ads against Democrats who voted to regulate them, using the money the banks were bailed out with, convincing people that are angry about bailouts and corporate control of government to vote against the "communist" Democrats. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The stock market LOVES this today.

This, or a hundred other things. OMG, the market's been in a two day slump since Brown was elected.

dude, get real, bank's stocks were down 4-6% today and the overall market was down 2%...you can write off yesterday's activity to normal market behavior, but today was mostly about Obama.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Looks like it is going to take Barney Frank to temper this.

It's amazing how Obama would risk killing the recovery just for a short term populous boost. 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

This is great news. Glass-Steagall never should have ended in the first place.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This is great news. Glass-Steagall never should have ended in the first place.

yeah, I'm sure the 50% of Americans who own stocks are just loving it.

Interestingly, Barney Frank has come out against this today and says it would lead to a "Fire Sale".

Instead of regulating the derivatives, they're going to regulate companies.  Unbelievably STUPID!....at least Barney Frank understands.

[k-onmmunist]

How stupid.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I can't believe we have to wait for Barney Frank to kill this in committee.

[Sam Spade]

The real question here is since Glass-Steagall is only going to return in "spirit", how will it be written so that the banks can get around it?

Oh wait, Barney Frank will kill it in committee.  Never mind.

[The Mikado]

Never going to pass.

[Vepres]

You can't regulate the banks without changing the rules of the financial system first. They'll just get around the regulations.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Good. Too big to fail=too big to exist.

[Bo]

Good news, but not good enough. Why doesn't he just reinstate the whole act? This act has protected the U.S. from severe financial crises for 66 years before it was repealed. Or is there still too much banking influence on Capitol Hill?

[JSojourner]

The President is absolutely correct.  And yes, Glass-Steagall never should have been done away with.

[cinyc]

I strongly agree with Obama on this. I would like to never have to see a repeat of the "too big to fail" syndrome. It has become clear that certain activities of banks cause them to incur too much risk causing them to fail when the economy takes a dump, and given the central role banks have in shaping the macro economic environment (including the size of the money supply among other things - it goes up when they lend, and down when they don't), those activities need to be separated from lending and any money which has FDIC insurance.

  I am sure most would agree with me on this, no?

Not me.  I just don't get what a return to Glass-Steagall has to do with the last financial crisis.  The entities that were centrally involved - Lehman, Bear Stearns, AIG, etc. - weren't consumer banks.  They were investment banks that took on too much risk.  The government didn't have to step up at all when the entities failed - and didn't do so for Bear Stearns anyway.

If anything, the repeal of Glass Steagall HELPED because Bank of America wouldn't have been able to absorb Merill Lynch under the old rules.

What Obama is proposing is like treating a virus with penicillin - it sounds like a good idea, but won't work.  He's fighting the wrong battle.