Monday, March 30, 2009

Looking back to see who said what during the debate to repeal the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933 is wildly illuminating

When analyzing the recent collapse of the American economy, one of the main things that people point to when asking "how the hell did this happen?" is the Phil Gramm-led movement to repeal the Glass-Steagal act of 1933 in 1999. Glass-Steagal was a regulatory act passed during the Great Depression in an attempt to prevent the very events that led to Depression from happening again in the future. Sifting through a New York Times article that ran in the paper on the day after the Congress voted to repeal Glass-Steagal in 1999, it's illuminating to see who said what about what back then, to see what predictions were horribly wrong, and which ones were spot-on accurate.

Here are some of the excerpts I found most interesting...

Congress approved landmark legislation today that opens the door for a new era on Wall Street in which commercial banks, securities houses and insurers will find it easier and cheaper to enter one another's businesses.

The measure, considered by many the most important banking legislation in 66 years, was approved in the Senate by a vote of 90 to 8 and in the House tonight by 362 to 57. The bill will now be sent to the president, who is expected to sign it, aides said. It would become one of the most significant achievements this year by the White House and the Republicans leading the 106th Congress.

''Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century,'' Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said. ''This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy.''


Yes, this is the same Lawrence Summers who is now one of Obama's main advisers on matters of finance.

''The world changes, and we have to change with it,'' said Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who wrote the law that will bear his name along with the two other main Republican sponsors, Representative Jim Leach of Iowa and Representative Thomas J. Bliley Jr. of Virginia. ''We have a new century coming, and we have an opportunity to dominate that century the same way we dominated this century. Glass-Steagall, in the midst of the Great Depression, came at a time when the thinking was that the government was the answer. In this era of economic prosperity, we have decided that freedom is the answer.''

Oh yeah, freedom. I wonder what future generations will think when they look back in time at all of the disastrous decisions that were made by American politicians under the guise of protecting "freedom?"

However, there were a few wise men who accurately saw what the future held...

The decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 provoked dire warnings from a handful of dissenters that the deregulation of Wall Street would someday wreak havoc on the nation's financial system. The original idea behind Glass-Steagall was that separation between bankers and brokers would reduce the potential conflicts of interest that were thought to have contributed to the speculative stock frenzy before the Depression.

''I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010,'' said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. ''I wasn't around during the 1930's or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980's when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness.''

Senator Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota, said that Congress had ''seemed determined to unlearn the lessons from our past mistakes.''

''Scores of banks failed in the Great Depression as a result of unsound banking practices, and their failure only deepened the crisis,'' Mr. Wellstone said. ''Glass-Steagall was intended to protect our financial system by insulating commercial banking from other forms of risk. It was one of several stabilizers designed to keep a similar tragedy from recurring. Now Congress is about to repeal that economic stabilizer without putting any comparable safeguard in its place.''


And finally, the foolish words of former Senator and current embattled head of the New School Bob Kerrey seem to speak collectively for the supporters of the Glass-Steagal repeal...

Supporters of the legislation rejected those arguments. They responded that historians and economists have concluded that the Glass-Steagall Act was not the correct response to the banking crisis because it was the failure of the Federal Reserve in carrying out monetary policy, not speculation in the stock market, that caused the collapse of 11,000 banks. If anything, the supporters said, the new law will give financial companies the ability to diversify and therefore reduce their risks. The new law, they said, will also give regulators new tools to supervise shaky institutions.

''The concerns that we will have a meltdown like 1929 are dramatically overblown,'' said Senator Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska.


What is it that they say about failing to learn the lessons of the past?

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

This was a great piece of blogging, Cajun. You should really write an investigative book some day on whatever topic you choose. I think you'd add a great perspective to a topic for which you found enough passion. I almost said spin instead of perspective, but spin is a dirty little word these days ... not that you should be in the no-spin zone, but I digress...

Keep up the good work. I had heard talk about Glass-Steagal and Phil Gramm having responsibility for a portion of all this but I really don't know the particulars of the act - might be time to go do some more reading on those subjects to satisfy my curiosity.

Anonymous said...

Exceptionally well played sir!

Nick said...

While I like the idea of vilifying politicians, the situation is infinitely more complex than the repeal of G/S. (And I would argue that the author doesn't even understand what actually happened to cause the Great Depression).

The Cajun Boy said...

@nick...i'll be the first one to say that the problems we currently face are rooted in many things, but anyone who tries to say that the repeal of glass-steagal did not play a major role, perhaps moreso than any other single event, in creating the mess, is full of fucking shit.

Anonymous said...

Republicans reject this argument out of hand and point to the community housing legislation passed during the Clinton administration and corruption by Clinton oppointed officials at Freddie Mac/Sallie Mae as the reason for the current economic downturn. Of course, they reject rational thought out of hand as well.

RJ

Micky-T said...

Exellent! I find that quite amusing also.
Maybe a MSM show could be produced with information of the past that will help us all see more clearly where we are and who got us here.

Chris said...

I particularly like your comment on the supposed "freedom" we're all meant to be enjoying as a result of the policies enacted over the last 30 years. This concept of defending freedom at all costs has done little more than convolute the real definition of the word to the point that no one would really even know whether they are actually free anymore. I'm watching the movie "Into the Wild" again which despite being written/directed by Sean Penn is such an incredibly profound film. Call the dude crazy but the protagonist of the story sought out true freedom in the traditional sense. If anything, our society's current idea of freedom is the antithesis of what it should be. We're all becoming slaves to the system and this crisis has only highlighted that fact. As much as I supported Obama, the current trend of our government and society in general is increasingly disconcerting to me. I’m not saying we should all join Glenn Beck’s propaganda army but seriously I think it’s worth everybody asking themselves, where has all this so-called freedom gotten us as a people, are we really even free?

Caitlin said...

Great post, Cajun Boy. It's kind of eerie reading quotes from 10 years ago, knowing the repercussions of that decision.

Kingfish said...

This has been floating around on the internet for awhile. Any reader of Market Ticker or Zero Hedge has seen this stuff.

THe repeal of this law isn't what caused the meltdown. SEC's decision in 2004 to repeal leverage limits was the real cause. Guess who lobbied for it? Paulson, who was at GS. Before the decision they were limited to 12:1 leverage ratios. They had no limits and grew to 20, 30, and even 80 to 1.

Nick67 said...

Hey Cajun Boy,
Great post. There are, of course, many problems that led to the big meltdown. It's helpful to compare the US to Canada in this respect. The Canucks have had just ONE bank failure since 1940--and the only reason that dude (Peter Pocklington) didn't go to jail is because he was a dark-horse contender to run the country and prosecuters didn't want to appear political. The root cause of this whole mess is a failure to regulate who was allowed gamble with how much leverage. Glass-Steagal was designed to keep the gamblers separate from the lenders. Long Term Capital Management SHOULD have been the canary in the mine that warned everyone that the longbrains were taking VERY large gambles with astronomical leverage. Instead of taking a cautionary tale out of what would have happened if LTCM had lost and not wound down successfully--everyone looked at what would have happened had they won.

Barings Bank was destroyed by leverage-gambling. "Oh, he was a rogue trader!" No he wasn't. He was the tip of the iceberg. The most leveraged on the riskiest gamble. The red flag should have gone up--but it didn't--there was too much money to be won. Note that I didn't say EARNED.

There is such a monster as investing with leverage. You buy an asset with borrowed money because your research indicates that the market undervalues it, or with ownership you can increase its return, or your cost to borrow will be less than your expected return. This is very differnet from buying an asset because you speculate that its value will continue to rise, allowing you to sell it later at a profit. It is also very different from selling an insurance policy with no capital backing it because you expect that you will never need to pay the policy holder.

Almost EVERYONE in the US got on the gambling-leverage gravy train. Homeowners bought homes at outrageous prices with outrageous loans because they expected to sell or refinance before things got onerous. Banks refi'd everything in sight because the gamble that the homeowner couldn't pay before selling was deemed to be risk-free--and there were fees and interest to be earned. EVERYONE gambled on CDO's because they supposedly offered higher returns at the same risk as treauries. The worry warts bought credit default swaps to cover their butts. The sellers of CDS gambled that they'd never need to pay and held insufficient reserves against the possibility.

It was a huge poker game that almost everyone thought they could win at. Repealing Glass-Steagal was an act of faith that the market would be able to pick the
investors from the gamblers and the good gamblers from the bad--and that REAL wealth would result.
But poker isn't a productive activity. Which anyone with sense realizes--and the very few politicians with balls said.

The real root cause, if you really get down to it, is American institutions. They create ball-less, corrupt politicians, a rudder-less civil service and a timid media. This balls-up has been seen coming for a long time. Ask yourself, "why didn't any put their foot down and prevent it?"