Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
I think it is important to understand what Glass-Steagall really is, and what it is not. The concept behind it - separating commercial bank activities from investor bank activities - is sound, but not a panacea. As one commentator put it, the crash was like the Titanic sinking, and Glass-Steagall was really about how many lifeboats were aboard. (Repeal of Glass-Steagall: Not a cause, but a multiplier - WaPo.) I completely agree, and Dodd-Frank has really done a sound, if incomplete, job of restoring some of the stability that Glass-Steagall provided. More needs to be done.

The Titanic still would have sunk, and doubling the number of lifeboats is good - but it still means a third of the passengers still drown. Glass-Steagall would mean the boat was smaller with fewer passengers, but would not have prevented it from sinking. Dodd-Frank comes closer to keeping it afloat.

Having worked in finance for over 30 years I have an idea of what GS and Dodd Frank are. But I don't think that is the point. The point is that Bill and Hillary were on the 90s ba(n)dwagon of reducing regulation when they should have been restructuring the whole shebang. They were playing politics.
There will be crashes as long as the current financial system exists.
That was not the idea behind the regulation - the idea was and is and should be: when they happen who is accountable? Who has prepared themselves for it and who has not? And what do the monetary authorities do when it happens?
The Lehman Brothers debacle is a good example. Bernanke has admitted that they "misdirected" the public when they let us think that they could have but decided not to save it. Truth is: they couldn't save even if they wanted to, but they didn't want people to know that.

"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce

"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky