It would be
another law on
the books that
serves no purpose
other than a
politician being able to say
he or she voted for it.
John G. Musial
want checking and
banks appeal to
those who have income to
invest [and] advisers.
Let’s let the
with its pocket-
book rather than
Owens Cross Roads, AL
I prefer to make
the decision as to
[how my money
is invested]. I do
not need my
commercial bank to make
those choices for me.
St. George, UT
It would hurt
credit unions and
rates for the
regular person, and lead to
a bailout from government.
Port Angeles, WA
It would help
prevent fraud and
abuse of clients.
Find out more about this topic on the Web:
www.marginalrevolution.com (search “The puzzling return of Glass-Steagall”)
www.thinkprogress.org (search “Break up big banks”)
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs (search “Warren, McCain, Glass-Steagall”)
http://tv.msnbc.com (search “Warren, McCain, Glass-Steagall”)
A BIPARTISAN GROUP of lawmakers has introduced
a new version of the 1933 banking legislation (the
Glass-Steagall Act) that would separate traditional
commercial banks, which have savings and checking
accounts insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, from financial institutions that engage
in riskier, uninsured activities.
Supporters of the move say it will reduce the size
of banks considered “too big to fail,” offer more
protection for depositors and minimize the possibility
of a government bailout like the one in 2008.
Opponents argue that mixing activities had little to
do with bank failures and the proposed legislation does
little to protect the public from the type of devastation
recently experienced. Worse, they add, it threatens to
distract attention from legitimate reform efforts.
What do you think?