An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

America’s Financial Crisis: It’s Time to ‘De-Deregulate’

The Telegraph, U.K.

Now that a turning back of the financial deregulation that began under Reagan and continued under Bush I, Clinton and Bush II looks imminent, what U.S. President is most to blame for the current crisis? Patrik Etschmayer writes for Switzerland’s Nachrichten, “Only when regulations were relaxed under Ronald Reagan did the first rather costly banking disaster ensue: The Savings and Loan crisis. This led to the recession of the early 1990s, which helped secure Bill Clinton’s 1992 electoral victory. But Clinton didn’t heed the warning. Even though it is now no longer discussed, and all fingers point toward George W. Bush – his actions alone could not have resulted in today’s disaster. … Clinton worked until almost the end of his term to abolish Glass-Steagal. The Congress fought him for years just as it had under Reagan and Bush the First. But in 1997, the FED Board of Directors under Alan Greenspan eliminated rules that limited securities trading for savings banks.”

In explaining why things have gone so badly that stricter banking rules are now necessary, Etschmayer writes, “Legal regulation seems to be the only way to rein in the apparently boundless greed – because bankers, speculators, hedge-fund managers and other stock market players large and small – and not only in the United States – seem to have lost the capacity to distinguish between freedom and foolishness.”

By Patrik Etschmayer

Translated By Patrik Etschmayer

March 31, 2008

Switzerland – Nachrichten – Original Article (German)

The promises were big and for several years the results seemed to confirm the prophets: The deregulation of the U.S.-banking system in 1999 opened up unbelievable opportunities in the United States for international and national banks to make money and amass power.

After 1933, as a consequence of the investment panic of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression, the U.S. put into force the Glass-Steagal Act . After the passage of this law, it was no longer possible for U.S.-Banks to take part in the savings and loan business as well as trade in securities [stocks].

As a result there was a curtailment of smaller, regional banks – strict controls were imposed on these institutions. It might have been an economic disadvantage, but on the other hand, one must recognize that the United States went another 50 years without another banking crisis.

Only when regulations were relaxed under Ronald Reagan did the first rather costly banking disaster ensue: The Savings and Loan crisis . This led to the recession of the early 1990s, which helped secure Bill Clinton’s 1992 electoral victory. But Clinton didn’t heed the warning. Even though it is now no longer discussed and all fingers point toward George W. Bush – his actions alone could not have resulted in today’s disaster. That required something more. One of Clinton’s central slogans was that the “Era of Big Government” was over, and that from now on, the State would stay out of the economy.

Clinton worked until almost the end of his term to abolish Glass-Steagal. The Congress fought him for years just as it had under Reagan and Bush the First. But in 1997, the FED Board of Directors under Alan Greenspan eliminated rules that limited securities trading for savings banks.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the unfolding financial crisis.

  • runasim
    SD said:
    "No one knows what would happen if the government has to approve every loan and every investment but that seems to be the directin that the progressives want. "

    No one knows and no one cares, because no one with powr or inflfluence is suggesting that such a thing should happen. These 'progressives' that you refer to (whoever they are) are not in Washington, at any rate. The Democrats that are there, are holding very firmly to a centrist stand, thank you very much.

    I'm not interested enough to research the history of banking law, but there is a curious thing going on about Clinton's administration. If the results were good (booming economy), it wasn't Clinton, it was the Rep. Congress that caused it.
    If the results were bad, it was Clinton, and the Republicans in Congress had nothing to do with it.
    Very convenient, that, and also vey transparently silly..

    Although I think the present administration has had a disasterous affect on the nation, and the world, there is one thing we should remember to understand its excesses in favor of profit and growth at any cost.
    9/11 did not only kill people, it was also a serious blow to the economy. In the aftermath, bold action was necessary to recoup. The trouble was, that the mentality stayed long after the period of recovery was over. Long after signs emerged of serious trouble, the admnistration was tirelessly preaching how wonderful things were.
    A little reality check at one point, several years ago, could have removed any temptation for these nefarious 'progressives' to complain.

    The economy is how it's experienced in the land. not what economic theorists dream up in their ivory towers. Theories are there to be tried out. Someone has to loversee their application to watch for misuse, and someone has to look around to see how the're working out.. That not having been the case, we are in our mess now.
  • superdestroyer
    Slamfu,

    If you look at http://books.google.com/books?id=lzys8fDJn3AC&p...
    You will see that there was a huge number of causes where Garn- St Germain was just part of one of them. And even then, Garn- ST Germain was passed with overwhelmingly Democratic support.

    The Savings and Loan model was unsustainable when in 1980 the short term interest rate was 15% and was higher than the long term interest rate. the model was also unsustainable was money could be invested in more places.

    Also, the change in the banking regulation came during the Clinton Admnistration.

    The article cited was very partisan and once again, very short on proposed regulations. No one knows what would happen if the government has to approve every loan and every investment but that seems to be the directin that the progressives want. If the left is not careful, they could destroy the mortgage industry in the U.S. because no one will want to invest money in mortgages when the legal liability is going to become too great.
  • Slamfu
    Actually SuperD it was the Garn - St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 that really got the ball rolling. This act allowed the S&L's to increase rates, borrow from the Fed, make commercial loans and issue credit cards, things they could not do before. This was coupled with the booming real estate market led to some high risk loans that played a major part in the collapse. These risky mortgages were then allowed to be sold off at a loss to 3rd parties who then used them as the basis for bonds that many people bought, including some S&L's. Any of this sounding familiar?

    Carter's administration oversaw the relaxing of regulations on what interest rates S&L's could pay, and increased the amount that the gov't insured of their deposits. While there was deregulation in both administrations, the damaging one came during Reagan's. Once again, conservatives seem to be pinning the blame on Carter for things that were not his responsibility.
  • runasim
    Regutate or deregulate, that's the same argument that conimues ad nauswm seum about socialism, capitalism amd free markets.

    As economics fashions and politica powers change, they tend to go to the oppostite extreme of whatever preceded.

    Markets and businesses are run by human beings, subject to all the human temptations, greed being one those at the forefront. The notion that the markets could self-regulate (competitive greed) is foolish, IMO. There will alsways be those who game the system, go for quick profits, and don't give a hoot for the overall health of a nation's economy or even the global economy.

    So. yes. We need to regualte. The question is how to regualte and how much to regulate, as .too much regualtion has its own risks.
    From what I can gather, even top economists are struggling to find the right combination. I'm only sure that it must be a delicate balance, not an extreme pendulum swing. to ideological formulas.
  • superdestroyer
    It is hard to take a writer seriously when there is a huge error in their article.

    S&L's were deregulated in 1980 during the Carter Administration because the S&L model was unsustainable in a high inflation economy (long term low interest debt versus higher interest paying savings accounts). The expansion of mutual funds also made S&L accounts less viable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_c...

    Also, in true activist fashion, the article is extremely long on fingerpointing while skimping on what the proposed regulations would be.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC