Was 1945-2006 unique in how little anger their was towards banks?

[darklordoftech]

Throughout history, there has often been anger towards banks, whether it be what Jesus said, Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan, or the 2008 recession, but in 1945-2006, there was so little anger towards banks that policies such as Gramm-Leach-Bliley could pass with little controversy (at the time).

[buritobr]

In the first world yes, because there was no banking crisis.

But in the periphery of the global capitalism there were a lot of crisis in the 1990s, and so, there was anger toward banks.

[Skill and Chance]

It's more that 1945-2005ish (ending with China industrializing) and especially 1945-1975 was a uniquely good time in history to be in the American middle class due to total economic dominance after winning WWII.  There just wasn't a lot for the average person to be upset about in their financial life.  Life was less competitive in general than it is now and long term prime age unemployment just wasn't an issue unless you got very sick or wanted to be a stay at home parent. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Regulating banks makes people hate them less, which leads to bank deregulation, which leads to people hating the banks again.

[Orser67]

I'm not exactly sure about anger towards banks (though it is an interesting point that perhaps anger towards banks was relatively low post-WW2), but in terms of banking policy, I would separate out 1945-1980 from 1980-2006. The New Deal brought on a new level of banking regulation that was largely in place until a period of deregulation that began with the 1980 Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (part of a broader trend of deregulation that began in the late 1970s).

[Don Vito Corleone]

One thing you should consider with regards to this question is that after the victory of the Allies, there was little anger from most people (not all, of course) towards institutions in general. Consider the following graph:

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

One thing you should consider with regards to this question is that after the victory of the Allies, there was little anger from most people (not all, of course) towards institutions in general. Consider the following graph:

I don't ever thing that level of trust will be seen again.

[darklordoftech]

Regulating banks makes people hate them less, which leads to bank deregulation, which leads to people hating the banks again.

That’s what I was getting at.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Regulating banks makes people hate them less, which leads to bank deregulation, which leads to people hating the banks again.

That’s what I was getting at.

People don't think enough about second and third order of events anymore.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Regulating banks makes people hate them less, which leads to bank deregulation, which leads to people hating the banks again.

This plays into a larger trend we see post-1945 of liberal democratic institutions succeeding in marginalizing threats to their existence, resulting in people downplaying the seriousness of those threats. (See: all the people who told us the whackos would never actually storm the Capitol.)

[Motorcity]

One thing you should consider with regards to this question is that after the victory of the Allies, there was little anger from most people (not all, of course) towards institutions in general. Consider the following graph:

I don't ever thing that level of trust will be seen again.

So, everyone trusted the government because of WW2, even minorities. That is interesting

It looks like it started falling drastically with civil rights. Half the country was either mad at segeration ending, and if you didn't want to look racist, the intergration of schools. This peaked at 1979 after years of Vietnam, Watergate, Iran, inflation.

Reagan and the econimc boom of the 80s helped

Until the Iran-Corta and early 90s recession mucked things up

The 90s boom helped and it peaked with the rally around the flag effect in 9/11

So decline since

[Samof94]

In the first world yes, because there was no banking crisis.

But in the periphery of the global capitalism there were a lot of crisis in the 1990s, and so, there was anger toward banks.

Suharto

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Regulating banks makes people hate them less, which leads to bank deregulation, which leads to people hating the banks again.

This plays into a larger trend we see post-1945 of liberal democratic institutions succeeding in marginalizing threats to their existence, resulting in people downplaying the seriousness of those threats. (See: all the people who told us the whackos would never actually storm the Capitol.)

Indeed, its almost like the establishment gets complacent when the plebs proletariat is not baying for blood at the gates to the castle.