Topic: Now that both President Obama and Elizabeth Warren have debunked it...
Metæ started this discussion 12 years ago #33,608
Can we drop the "repeal of Glass-Steagall caused the financial crisis" talking point?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 17 minutes later[^] [v] #464,700
Agreed. Glass seagulls were not to blame.Metal ducks are a far more likely explanation anyway.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #464,702
@previous (B)
glass seagulls are more likely to poop on you though.
and when you kill them they shatter into tiny, clear caltrops, so really, fuck glass seagulls
glass seagulls are more likely to poop on you though.
and when you kill them they shatter into tiny, clear caltrops, so really, fuck glass seagulls
Metæ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #464,703
@464,700 (B)
If your metal duck (or, god forbid, metal pair of ducks) crashes, the dents can be hammered out or repaired with Bondo™ and resprayed. A glass seagull, however, is just ruined and will cut your foot open if you step on it.
If your metal duck (or, god forbid, metal pair of ducks) crashes, the dents can be hammered out or repaired with Bondo™ and resprayed. A glass seagull, however, is just ruined and will cut your foot open if you step on it.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #464,705
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #464,706
why when Elisabeth Warren says it "probably" had nothing to do with it.
probably doesn't sow much confidence.
probably doesn't sow much confidence.
Metæ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 17 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #464,710
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Probably is pretty confident. The fact remains that Lehman, Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddy, Goldman Sachs, Wachovia, Washington Mutual and AIG wouldn't have been saved by the "firewall".
She also said Glass-Steagall was symbolic, not a specific solution.
Probably is pretty confident. The fact remains that Lehman, Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddy, Goldman Sachs, Wachovia, Washington Mutual and AIG wouldn't have been saved by the "firewall".
She also said Glass-Steagall was symbolic, not a specific solution.
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #465,044
Metæ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #465,048
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
[[prob·a·bly
adverb \ˈprä-bə-blē, ˈprä(b)-blē\
: very likely : almost certainly
Full Definition of PROBABLY
: insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt <is probably happy> <it will probably rain>]]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/probably
That's like saying "well if evolution is true why is it called the theory of evolution, not the fact of evolution?"
[[prob·a·bly
adverb \ˈprä-bə-blē, ˈprä(b)-blē\
: very likely : almost certainly
Full Definition of PROBABLY
: insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt <is probably happy> <it will probably rain>]]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/probably
That's like saying "well if evolution is true why is it called the theory of evolution, not the fact of evolution?"
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Metæ (OP) double-posted this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #465,050
@465,044 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Obama sounds convinced: But there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic. Lehman Brothers wasn't a commercial bank, it was an investment bank. AIG wasn't an FDIC-insured bank, it was an insurance institution. So the problem in today's financial sector can't be solved simply by reimposing models that were created in the 1930s. (Emphasis added).
Obama sounds convinced: But there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic. Lehman Brothers wasn't a commercial bank, it was an investment bank. AIG wasn't an FDIC-insured bank, it was an insurance institution. So the problem in today's financial sector can't be solved simply by reimposing models that were created in the 1930s. (Emphasis added).
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #465,061
Wow, two of the top criminals in America have an opinion. It's perfectly sensible to believe them.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #465,100
@465,048 (Metæ)
> almost certainly
> likely
> without MUCH doubt.
Maybe... can't be sure though...
Possibly? It's my best guess...
> almost certainly
> likely
> without MUCH doubt.
Maybe... can't be sure though...
Possibly? It's my best guess...
Metæ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #465,101
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Can you give an example of how Glass-Steagall would have prevented or mitigated the 2008 crisis?
Can you give an example of how Glass-Steagall would have prevented or mitigated the 2008 crisis?
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 50 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #465,108
@previous (Metæ)
Yes, if it was in place the financial collapse and recession wouldn't have happened. Almost certainly, without much doubt.
Game, set, match
Yes, if it was in place the financial collapse and recession wouldn't have happened. Almost certainly, without much doubt.
Game, set, match
Metæ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #465,110
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Playing Clintonesque semantics games can't save a discredited talking point.
Playing Clintonesque semantics games can't save a discredited talking point.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 33 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #465,128
Metæ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #465,139
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #465,142
Metæ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #465,144
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
He was honestly my favorite president of the 20th century. He even balanced the budget!
He was honestly my favorite president of the 20th century. He even balanced the budget!
(Edited 53 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 12 years ago, 12 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #465,234
@previous (Metæ)
What a poor selection. Clinton was a CFR/NWO stooge from day one. At least Regan had the balls to get shot before selling out.
What a poor selection. Clinton was a CFR/NWO stooge from day one. At least Regan had the balls to get shot before selling out.
Metæ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #465,300
@previous (G)
Reagan was all talk, though. He had nice rhetoric but spending, deficits, and even government regulations went dramatically up under him.
And he was shot by a nutcase trying to impress Jodie Foster. He sold out from day one.
Reagan was all talk, though. He had nice rhetoric but spending, deficits, and even government regulations went dramatically up under him.
And he was shot by a nutcase trying to impress Jodie Foster. He sold out from day one.