Forum Post: Repeal Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 18, 2011, 2:14 a.m. EST by antipolitics
(127)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
This enacted in 1999, which lead to "Too Big to Fail" and the Financial Collapse of 2008
It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass–Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.
Let's Repeal this monstrosity.
Edit:
Member thecenterpath makes a good point, the Glass–Steagall Act was meant as a safe-guard after the Great Depression...
...in the Great Depression after 1929, Congress examined the mixing of the "commercial" and "investment" banking industries that occurred in the 1920s. Hearings revealed conflicts of interest and fraud in some banking institutions' securities activities. A formidable barrier to the mixing of these activities was then set up by the Glass–Steagall Act.
Conflicts of interests? Fraud?... after the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed we saw Billions of dollars of profits by the Bankers on Wall St. at the expense of flushing our Economy down the tubes...
Edit:
Best move we could make.
Exactly right! We must repeal Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
I've already written my Senator (Schumer) about it. I hope everybody emails or calls their representatives to demand this repeal.
Petition to the United States Congress for the Repeal of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act created.
http://www.change.org/petitions/congress-of-the-united-states-repeal-grammleachbliley-act
done!
thanks!
Contacting our Senators/Congressman is a good idea! Getting my tweets ready...
antipolitics,
Repeal Gramm–Leach–Bliley Absolutely without question the most important demand OWS can make. It is the first step to eliminating the criminal activity of the Wall Street casinos.
Bring back Glass-Steagall
Agree, reinstate it not like its radical legislation its common sense. Been saying that since 2008. Canada banking system is great for the reason they did not remove the shock absorbers out of the system. Canada banking most conservative in the industrialized world. Puts the UK and USA banking system to shame
Agreed... the one major reason why the financial system collapsed, why it didn't collapse since the GD, and why states that had the barrier, ie Canada, didn't collapse.
The 3 Stooges who broke our economy are proof the Republicans should get out of government and politics.
The Republicans didn’t see a problem with the Gramm Leach Bliley law when it was written. Most Democrats didn’t either. Now Republicans aren’t doing anything to repair the damage and prevent recurrences. Democrats aren’t doing enough.
Byron Dorgan (D) N.D. v Gramm (R) Leach (R) Bliley (R) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvnO_SH-4WU&list=PL399213F28C3CC71A&feature=plpp_play_all [right click]
Repeal Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Write or call your representatives today!
done!
Thanks for the petition.
This explains it thoroughly:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL325E5EF5DAB7D072
Don't fall for this psychological crap from any one percent goon. It's an obvious attempt to divert our attention from the obscene, unjust, immoral, and illogical concentration of wealth. Donald Trump went on record the other day telling us to blame the government instead of Wall Street and the richest one percent. Don't fall for it. Just keep protesting no matter what the one percent goons say or do. Our message is vital. Below is my two cents:
We have been mislead by Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid ’07′ however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic political manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole. We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitation workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. I’ll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers. In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years. Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It won’t. Not by a longshot. Jobs don’t necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the mostpart, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another. In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The ‘free market’ just doesn’t cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty. Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of ’08′ the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it. Consumer debt, forclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of ’08′, every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nation’s wealth has been concentrated. Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job creation, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we don’t. Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent already own nearly 1/2 of all United States wealth. More than double their share before Reagan took office. Still, they want more. They absolutely will not stop. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeapordy. Greed kills.
Is wealth a zero-sum game? As in... if the 1% get's richer and richer... doesn't that automatically mean us, the 99% will get poorer? I don't quite understand how that part works...
Unless it's all about changing Hands... If I have $100k and exchange it with you for $100k worth of value, then you will now have $100k... so that year we would have both made $100k (I made mine earlier somehow). However if I do not spend that money, instead I hoard it, you can no longer make yours.
Is there a finite amount of money out there?
So pretend there is only $1-trillion out there. If the rich keeps getting richer, and hoards the money, they will continue to reduce the amount of money and leave everyone else poorer, and a less likely chance to acquire money.
Is this how it actually works? A zero-sum game where we the 99%, the ones without D$C$ Influence, get's screwed, gradually over time by the 1% ?
Jesus Christ already. I've responded to that grade school crap about zero sum so many times already. Again. I NEVER SAID ANYTHING WAS ZERO SUM. But regardless of growth, there is ALWAYS a relative limit to the wealth within any given economy at any given time. The pie doesn't double in size overnight. Creating net wealth without a lagging downside is very tricky. Therefore, we must also address the distribution of wealth with behavior and/or policies intended to prevent or reverse a heavy concentration. God damn it already. You die hard conservatives need to stop making such grade school assumptions about zero sum every time you hear or read a reference to the concentration of wealth. In the meantime, I have work to do.
uh you did? where? quit spamming dude...
I don't get your response... so is the economy zero-sum or not? Sorry I have a "grade school" education. Dumb it down for me please.
Are you saying I'm a conservative? like I said I don't understand your response. :)
When the rich get too rich, the majority beneath them get poor.