Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 23 Jul '13 14:23
    Here is an excerpt from the link below:

    The hearing is the first to address the oversight of banks in physical commodity markets since a Reuters report last year revealed that Goldman and Morgan Stanley were still awaiting a Federal Reserve decision on whether they can still own physical assets after becoming bank holding companies in 2008.

    Commercial banks are prohibited from owning trading assets, but the two former investment banks argued that their commodity activities are permitted under a "grandfathering" clause in a 1997 law that effectively scrapped much of the Glass-Steagel act separating the commercial and investment banks.

    The Fed has until mid-September deadline to make that decision, and has never commented on the issue. The central bank's reluctance to address the issue publicly may also come under scrutiny at the hearing.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/23/us-commodities-banks-senate-idUSBRE96M03O20130723

    Corruption has been allowed to run rampant and something should be done about it now, not later. Do you agree?
  2. 23 Jul '13 15:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Here is an excerpt from the link below:

    The hearing is the first to address the oversight of banks in physical commodity markets since a Reuters report last year revealed that Goldman and Morgan Stanley were still awaiting a Federal Reserve decision on whether they can still own physical assets after becoming bank holding companies in 2008.

    Commerc en allowed to run rampant and something should be done about it now, not later. Do you agree?
    I agree and so does Elizabeth Warren. The "too big to fail" banks that needed a bailout five years ago are now bigger and have taken on even more risk than they had in 2008! Detroit pensioners will get no life raft but these banks will, at some point, undoubtlably need another bailout using my tax dollars. However, the working poor are getting shafted with reduced or elimnated food stamps and no change in minimum wage over the past twenty years.
  3. 23 Jul '13 19:51
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Here is an excerpt from the link below:

    The hearing is the first to address the oversight of banks in physical commodity markets since a Reuters report last year revealed that Goldman and Morgan Stanley were still awaiting a Federal Reserve decision on whether they can still own physical assets after becoming bank holding companies in 2008.

    Commerc ...[text shortened]... en allowed to run rampant and something should be done about it now, not later. Do you agree?
    Glass-Steagel was enough to somewhat restrain the Fed decades ago. I don't know if it is relevant or potent enough, if it were to be brought back to undo what Freidman's floating dollar, the repudiation of the gold standard, and the whole belief that Wall Street and Main Street are co dependents.

    The Fed and its policy of buying Federal debt is at the heart of the problems.
  4. 24 Jul '13 01:22
    Originally posted by Phranny
    I agree and so does Elizabeth Warren. The "too big to fail" banks that needed a bailout five years ago are now bigger and have taken on even more risk than they had in 2008! Detroit pensioners will get no life raft but these banks will, at some point, undoubtlably need another bailout using my tax dollars. However, the working poor are getting shafted with reduced or elimnated food stamps and no change in minimum wage over the past twenty years.
    Nonsense. Obama fixed everything with Dodd-Frank, just like he fixed health care.
  5. Standard member empovsun
    Adepto 'er perfectu
    24 Jul '13 04:15
    Originally posted by Phranny
    I agree and so does Elizabeth Warren. The "too big to fail" banks that needed a bailout five years ago are now bigger and have taken on even more risk than they had in 2008! Detroit pensioners will get no life raft but these banks will, at some point, undoubtlably need another bailout using my tax dollars. However, the working poor are getting shafted with reduced or elimnated food stamps and no change in minimum wage over the past twenty years.
    get ready for another episode of Will the Stockmarket Collapse Today

    starring joe rogan from fear factor
  6. 24 Jul '13 10:08
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Glass-Steagel was enough to somewhat restrain the Fed decades ago. I don't know if it is relevant or potent enough, if it were to be brought back to undo what Freidman's floating dollar, the repudiation of the gold standard, and the whole belief that Wall Street and Main Street are co dependents.

    The Fed and its policy of buying Federal debt is at the heart of the problems.
    The Fed is taking their sweet time. They should not wait until mid-September to make a decision. They are certainly part of the problem and are letting banks artificially drive up the price of aluminum (and other commodities) and profit from them at the consumers expense. The bond buying has little to do with this issue.

    Glass-Steagel was repealed with the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. This allowed for the increased speculation that contributed to the economic downturn of 2008. The Dodd-Frank was supposed to restore Glass-Steagel enough to prevent reckless speculation but did not. Dodd-Frank was just window dressing to give the illusion something was done to curb those abuses. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank were just tools of the big banks.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/100906282

    I know we both consider ourselves Libertarians but most Libertarians are wrong on this issue. Regulations are badly needed and Glass-Steagel needs to be restored now, not later.
  7. 24 Jul '13 11:20
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    The Fed is taking their sweet time. They should not wait until mid-September to make a decision. They are certainly part of the problem and are letting banks artificially drive up the price of aluminum (and other commodities) and profit from them at the consumers expense. The bond buying has little to do with this issue.

    Glass-Steagel was repealed wit ...[text shortened]... this issue. Regulations are badly needed and Glass-Steagel needs to be restored now, not later.
    I refuse to believe this. Democrats would never do this to us, the GOP must be behind it all.

    Help USAparatrooper guy. Moon!!! Anyone? :'(
  8. 24 Jul '13 11:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    The Fed is taking their sweet time. They should not wait until mid-September to make a decision. They are certainly part of the problem and are letting banks artificially drive up the price of aluminum (and other commodities) and profit from them at the consumers expense. The bond buying has little to do with this issue.

    Glass-Steagel was repealed wit ...[text shortened]... this issue. Regulations are badly needed and Glass-Steagel needs to be restored now, not later.
    The problem is that the repeal of Glass Steagal was not the impetus for greater speculative actions, at least not the critical or main one. The first was the Camp David repudiation of the gold standard by Nixon creating a virtual rudderless ship, and second was Milton Friedman's floating dollar standard. Before these two things, nobody in their right mind would have speculated on foreign currencies, as there was precious little fluctuation.

    In the days prior to that the Chicago Merc futures market served to smooth out good and bad years in agriculture, but wild betting on everything else didn't happen until the two above mentioned events. The worst of it happened under Greenspan, with the exception that Bernanke has taken it to a whole new level, and the next bubble will be worse than the last.

    Carter Glass was one of the good guys, and it was he not Steagal that crafted that regulation. The problem with the Fed, is that early on it was populated and run by people who believed in sound money, and acted accordingly. Recently, there haven't been any people like that, with the possible exception of Paul Volker, which illustrates the folly of creating institutions with almost unlimited power, without checks and balances.

    The bond buying, and artificially low interest rates has given the impression that the Fed's job 1 is to prop up the stock market, Wall Street. Never was this so clear as with the Wall Street bailouts in the transition from Bush to Obama and since. Without the bond buying, government would be forced to raise taxes to continue its spending. These high flyers should have been left to their own devices to crash and burn. That is a primary function of markets, ridding themselves of bad players, and taking back artificially created wealth.

    There was no Reagan prosperity, nor any Clinton well being. It was all artificial bubble wealth, and the exuberance of Wall Street filtered down to Main Street, leading to almost no savings, and wild spending on credit by consumers, and the painful reality of the current economy. The easy blame game is to put it on the President in charge, but the reality is that he is a small player compared to the Fed.

    When I put the blame on Milton Friedman, it is with a heavy heart, because other than his floating currency contraption, he is a solid libertarian, and free market advocate.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    24 Jul '13 13:07
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Here is an excerpt from the link below:

    The hearing is the first to address the oversight of banks in physical commodity markets since a Reuters report last year revealed that Goldman and Morgan Stanley were still awaiting a Federal Reserve decision on whether they can still own physical assets after becoming bank holding companies in 2008.

    Commerc ...[text shortened]... en allowed to run rampant and something should be done about it now, not later. Do you agree?
    Help me out, here, MB.

    Don't get be wrong, I don't think G-S should have been repealed in the first place, but...

    Your one identifying characteristic; your big theme on RHP for years has been an almost pathological suspicion of all things government; especially US government.

    And now you're clamoring for the implementation of a huge set of government oversight regulations of the market? When did you acquire all this trust for the government?
  10. 24 Jul '13 14:34
    Originally posted by sh76
    Help me out, here, MB.

    Don't get be wrong, I don't think G-S should have been repealed in the first place, but...

    Your one identifying characteristic; your big theme on RHP for years has been an almost pathological suspicion of all things government; especially US government.

    And now you're clamoring for the implementation of a huge set of government oversight regulations of the market? When did you acquire all this trust for the government?
    I have been consistent contrary to what you imply.

    I have always thought that Glass-Steagall was good regulation and I challenge you to find any statement I have made on this forum that implies anything else.

    I have been critical of government when they repealed Glass-Steagall and critical of the FRS for many things as you know. This thread is no different.

    You said this:

    "And now you're clamoring for the implementation of a huge set of government oversight regulations of the market? When did you acquire all this trust for the government?"

    That is also misleading. I have been consistent with my past positions. For example, Ron Paul wanted to audit the FRS and that is government oversight, right? It is more than government oversight though. It is transparency. Everybody has a right to know what is going on so they can express an opinion.

    Your dog doesn't hunt. Nice try though.
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    24 Jul '13 14:49
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    I have been consistent contrary to what you imply.

    I have always thought that Glass-Steagall was good regulation and I challenge you to find any statement I have made on this forum that implies anything else.

    I have been critical of government when they repealed Glass-Steagall and critical of the FRS for many things as you know. This thread is no d ...[text shortened]... what is going on so they can express an opinion.

    Your dog doesn't hunt. Nice try though.
    The FRS is a federally run system. G-S would regulate private banks. There's a big difference between the two.

    I'm not saying that you've ever been specifically against G-S but I don't understand why you would trust the government to micromanage the activity of private banks when you trust it for virtually nothing else.
  12. 24 Jul '13 15:02
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The problem is that the repeal of Glass Steagal was not the impetus for greater speculative actions, at least not the critical or main one. The first was the Camp David repudiation of the gold standard by Nixon creating a virtual rudderless ship, and second was Milton Friedman's floating dollar standard. Before these two things, nobody in their right mi ...[text shortened]... than his floating currency contraption, he is a solid libertarian, and free market advocate.
    "The problem is that the repeal of Glass Steagal was not the impetus for greater speculative actions, at least not the critical or main one. The first was the Camp David repudiation of the gold standard by Nixon creating a virtual rudderless ship, and second was Milton Friedman's floating dollar standard. Before these two things, nobody in their right mind would have speculated on foreign currencies, as there was precious little fluctuation."

    Speculations have been around forever, long before our country went off the gold standard. Look into the land bubble during the Jackson Administration. Blame it on the 2nd Bank of the US if you like but not the things you listed.
    Nixon abandoned the gold standard because the FRS inflated the money supply to the point of the reckless creation of inflation. I may not care much for Nixon, but he had very little or no control over the FRS increasing the money supply before he was even president. What was he to do, allow France and other countries to exchange dollars for gold until we had no gold left? I'm not saying that France didn't get screwed by denying them that, but losing all the USA's gold wasn't much of an option IMO. If you were in Nixon's shoes what would you have done?

    The next bubble probably will be worse than the last. Glass was the first name and Steagall last. Should any of us be surprised Glass crafted the legislation with his name listed first?

    The bond buying is to prevent a deflationary depression. Without QE that is exactly what would have happened. Taxing would not prevent a contraction of the money supply and the resultant deflation/depression. I'm not really defending Quantitative Easing though. The crash is going to happen sooner or later, Bernanke chose to prolong it and risk a more painful crash later than if he let it happen sooner.

    Milton Friedman did not always favor a floating currency.

    http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/milton-friedman-float-or-fix
  13. 24 Jul '13 15:25
    Originally posted by sh76
    The FRS is a federally run system. G-S would regulate private banks. There's a big difference between the two.

    I'm not saying that you've ever been specifically against G-S but I don't understand why you would trust the government to micromanage the activity of private banks when you trust it for virtually nothing else.
    The FRS is 100% privately owned. The President appoints the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System make it a quasi-governmental institution so you do have a point there. Glass-Steagall was created in 1933. It limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms. There was nothing wrong with keeping the two separate so commercial banks would not speculate using other people's money for anything other than loans.

    Let Securities Firms speculate, but NOT banks that influence the money supply. When they lose we all lose because the money supply contracts when the banks have no money to lend. No lending leads to deflation and depression.
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    24 Jul '13 22:28
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    The FRS is 100% privately owned. The President appoints the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System make it a quasi-governmental institution so you do have a point there. Glass-Steagall was created in 1933. It limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms. There was nothing wrong wi ...[text shortened]... y contracts when the banks have no money to lend. No lending leads to deflation and depression.
    Securities firms influence money supply too. When mutual funds or hedge funds invest large amounts of money in small businesses that stimulates the economy and positively affects money availability.

    Also, when banks invest and do well, that increases the money supply.

    IMO, regulation should limit the types of speculation banks can engage in and should regulate the disclosures required of banks and securities firms.
  15. 24 Jul '13 23:36
    Originally posted by sh76
    Securities firms influence money supply too. When mutual funds or hedge funds invest large amounts of money in small businesses that stimulates the economy and positively affects money availability.

    Also, when banks invest and do well, that increases the money supply.

    IMO, regulation should limit the types of speculation banks can engage in and should regulate the disclosures required of banks and securities firms.
    "Securities firms influence money supply too. When mutual funds or hedge funds invest large amounts of money in small businesses that stimulates the economy and positively affects money availability."

    That does not have the multiplying effect that loans do.

    "IMO, regulation should limit the types of speculation banks can engage in"

    That is exactly what Glass-Steagall did before it was effectively repealed. It was very wise to do so.