Dear President Trump: Breaking Up (Banks) Isn’t So Hard to Do: Either we push for Glass-Steagall or will have another Economic Meltdown?


Tomgram: Nomi Prins, In Washington, Is the Glass(-Steagall) Half Empty or Half Full?

Remember when “draining the swamp” was something the Bush administration swore it was going to do in launching its Global War on Terror?  Well, as we all know, that global swamp of terror only got muckier in the ensuing years.  (Think al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, think ISIS.)  Then, last year, that swamp left terror behind and took up residence in Washington, D.C.  In the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump swore repeatedly that, along with building his wall and locking “her” up, he was going to definitively drain the Washington swamp, ridding the national capital of special interests once and for all.  (“It is time to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C.,” he typically said. “This is why I’m proposing a package of ethics reforms to make our government honest once again.”)  “Drain the swamp” became one of the signature chants at his rallies.

No sooner had he been elected, however, then he decided to “retire” the concept of draining the swamp — and little wonder.  After all, he quickly began appointing hordes of “former lobbyists, lawyers and consultants” to agencies where they were to help “craft new policies for the same industries in which they recently earned a paycheck.” Then his administration started issuing waivers to those new appointees, allowing them to “take up matters that could benefit former clients.”  News of just who got those waivers was kept secret and only released after publicity about them took a truly bad turn.  Here’s a typical example of one of them, as reported by the New York Times: “A… waiver was given to Michael Catanzaro, who until January was registered as a lobbyist for companies including Devon Energy, an oil and gas company, and Talen Energy, a coal-burning electric utility. Mr. Catanzaro moved from lobbying against Obama-era environmental rules to overseeing the White House office in charge of rolling back the same rules, an activity permitted by his waiver.”

You want swamp?  You’ve already got the start of a genuine mire, a true bog in Donald Trump’s Washington.  Having yesterday’s corporate lobbyists oversee today’s government policies for the very industries that employed them last week doesn’t exactly increase the odds of instituting the sort of “populist” economics Trump promised on the campaign trail; nor, as TomDispatch regular Nomi Prins, author of All the Presidents’ Bankers, reported for this site back in late January, is appointing a veritable who’s who of Goldman Sachs executives to key positions, including Treasury secretary, the most obvious way to drain the swamp when it comes to, say, America’s banks and other financial institutions.  As for those banks — remember the “too big to fail” financial meltdown of 2007-2008? — let Prins tell you just what’s at stake in Washington right now. Tom

Dear President Trump: Breaking Up (Banks) Isn’t So Hard to Do
Glass-Steagall or Another Economic Meltdown?
By Nomi Prins

Donald, listen, whatever you’ve done so far, whatever you’ve messed up, there’s one thing you could do that would make up for a lot.  It would be huge!  Terrific!  It could change our world for the better in a big-league way!  It could save us all from economic disaster!  And it isn’t even hard to grasp or complicated to do.  It’s simple, in fact.  Reinstitute the Glass-Steagall Act. Let me explain.

In the world of romance, if you break up with someone, it’s pretty simple (emotional complications aside).  You’re just not together anymore. In the world of financial regulation, it used to be as simple as that, too. It was like installing a traffic light at a dangerous intersection to avoid deaths. In 1933, when the Glass-Steagall Act was passed, it helped break up the biggest banks of the day and for good reason: they had had a major hand in triggering the most disastrous economic depression our country ever experienced.

Certain divisions of those banks were no longer allowed to coexist with others. The law split the parts of banks that placed bets by creating and trading certain risky securities and those that took deposits and provided loans.  In other words, it ensured that the investment bank and the commercial bank would no longer cohabit. Put another way, it separated bankers with a heinous gambling habit from those who only wanted a secure nest egg.  It was simplicity itself.

Click here to read more of this dispatch.

Advertisements

About eslkevin

I am a peace educator who has taken time to teach and work in countries such as the USA, Germany, Japan, Nicaragua, Mexico, the UAE, Kuwait, Oman over the past 4 decades.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s