Republican Platform includes language about bringing back Glass-Stegall!

[RaphaelDLG]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-07-18/republican-platform-under-trump-backs-glass-steagall-s-return

See title:  How awesome!!!

Of course,
1) This doesn't in any way, shape, or form negate the other extremely horrendous stuff in the Republican platform
2) This doesn't make it worthwhile to vote for TRUMP
3) I seriously doubt a Republican congress, comprised of mostly waterboys for big finance, would ever pass this, especially with opposition from a sizeable part of the Democratic caucus

But still - coupled with a lot of positive Dem platform/Obama announcement news, it seems like

"I've got to admit it's getting better (Better)
A little better all the time (It can't get no worse)
I have to admit it's getting better"

[RINO Tom]

Trump is definitely trolling the GOP, and a lot of his supporters like him for just that reason...

[Taco Truck 🚚]

See title:  How awesome!!!

Yawn.

Newt Gingrich ca 2011...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/08/364404/gingrich-wall-street-deregulation-mistak/

[RaphaelDLG]

See title:  How awesome!!!

Yawn.

Newt Gingrich ca 2011...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/08/364404/gingrich-wall-street-deregulation-mistak/

Newt Gingrich
1) Isn't that important now and certainly was irrelevant in 2011 and
2) has made a career out of being a gadfly on TV.

This is the official party platform document, not some CNN contributor's off the cuff opinion.  Not an earth shattering development, but much different than your example.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The possibility of the Republican Party going in a more right-populist direction would actually represent a really interesting set of opportunities in American politics if right-populism didn't tend to be so racist.

[Mr. Smith]

Excellent, pity it took trump to get this to happen.

[Badger]

Can't believe this'll pass Congress, but a positive development.

Will the Democrats follow suit?

[136or142]

Excellent, pity it took trump to get this to happen.

At the same time he also says he wants to gut Dodd-Frank which actually addresses the things that caused the 2008 financial meltdown.

All of the arguments that Donald Trump Jr said about how repealing Dodd-Frank would be good for the economy ("growth strangling regulations."  I think it was Donald Trump Jr, anyway) were the same arguments used against Glass-Stegall, but now Glass-Stegall seems to have taken on some sort of mythic folk hero status.  So, it seems pretty clear to me this is just another dishonest populist appeal.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The possibility of the Republican Party going in a more right-populist direction would actually represent a really interesting set of opportunities in American politics if right-populism didn't tend to be so racist.

It's the Quebecisation of American politics.

[pbrower2a]

Maybe President Obama can call the bluff.

[Sir Mohamed]

LOL, can't be serious. The GOP repealed it and Billy made a bad mistake my approving such legislation in 1999.

[136or142]

You'll note I wrote my comment before this was published (at least published on Wonk Wire, but I didn't see it anywhere else.)

Why Is Glass-Steagall So Politically Popular and What Does It Really Mean?

July 20, 2016By Liam Dalton0 Comments
Brookings Institution: “Reinstating Glass-Steagall, the 1930s era signature financial regulation act, has achieved a rare feat, now included in both party’s platforms. How did this arcane, 80-year old law, suddenly become the trendy cure-all for our nation’s financial regulatory system?”

“Bringing back Glass-Steagall is good politics and bad public policy, as is often the case.”

“The major component of Glass-Steagall is the separation of commercial banking, investment banking, and insurance. Reinstating Glass-Steagall would mean that, for example, USAA could not be both a commercial bank and an insurance company to its millions of customers. Does anyone think that would help prevent another financial crisis? It would not have prevented what Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, Washington Mutual, Countrywide, or AIG did up to and during the financial crisis.”

“Glass-Steagall reinstatement would force a divorce of the shotgun marriage of Bank of America and Merrill Lynch that was arranged to stabilize the financial system. It would break Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase into smaller pieces. But Glass Steagall would not materially change Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, or the $2.7 trillion hedge fund industry.”

“The public should be careful about buying what is sold as a magic elixir. If they look at exactly what reinstating Glass-Steagall would and would not accomplish, they will be disappointed. Just as many of us pine for some of the sensibility and values of our grandparent’s generation, most of us do not want to replicate it.”

I don't know if I agree that reinstating Glass-Steagall would be bad public policy, but they are, in my opinion, absolutely correct that Glass-Steagall would have done nothing to have prevented the Financial Meltdown whereas Dodd-Frank, for all its faults, hopefully will prevent future occurrences of financial meltdowns based on criminal banking activity (even if hardly anybody was charged.)

[RaphaelDLG]

You'll note I wrote my comment before this was published (at least published on Wonk Wire, but I didn't see it anywhere else.)

Why Is Glass-Steagall So Politically Popular and What Does It Really Mean?

July 20, 2016By Liam Dalton0 Comments
Brookings Institution: “Reinstating Glass-Steagall, the 1930s era signature financial regulation act, has achieved a rare feat, now included in both party’s platforms. How did this arcane, 80-year old law, suddenly become the trendy cure-all for our nation’s financial regulatory system?”

“Bringing back Glass-Steagall is good politics and bad public policy, as is often the case.”

“The major component of Glass-Steagall is the separation of commercial banking, investment banking, and insurance. Reinstating Glass-Steagall would mean that, for example, USAA could not be both a commercial bank and an insurance company to its millions of customers. Does anyone think that would help prevent another financial crisis? It would not have prevented what Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, Washington Mutual, Countrywide, or AIG did up to and during the financial crisis.”

“Glass-Steagall reinstatement would force a divorce of the shotgun marriage of Bank of America and Merrill Lynch that was arranged to stabilize the financial system. It would break Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase into smaller pieces. But Glass Steagall would not materially change Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, or the $2.7 trillion hedge fund industry.”

“The public should be careful about buying what is sold as a magic elixir. If they look at exactly what reinstating Glass-Steagall would and would not accomplish, they will be disappointed. Just as many of us pine for some of the sensibility and values of our grandparent’s generation, most of us do not want to replicate it.”

I don't know if I agree that reinstating Glass-Steagall would be bad public policy, but they are, in my opinion, absolutely correct that Glass-Steagall would have done nothing to have prevented the Financial Meltdown whereas Dodd-Frank, for all its faults, hopefully will prevent future occurrences of financial meltdowns based on criminal banking activity (even if hardly anybody was charged.)

Yeah, I actually think that's right that Glass-Stegall wouldn't have prevented all of the precipitating factors of 07-08, and TBH, I'd actually prefer something a little different ideally. 

The system needs
1) capital requirements (non-banking institutions have to hold more in reserve) AND/OR taxation of size (institutions that reach a size that is so large that it is systemically dangerous are taxed heavily to make their size unpalatable),
2) transparency (financial devices have to be on exchanges, contracts can't be opaque, rating agencies have to be unbiased, regulators need to regulate), and
3) accountability (regulators need to regulate).

Dodd-Frank is not really giving us a complete version of the first two needs in its current form, and Obama's DOJ didn't give us anywhere close to #3.  Glass-Stegall wouldn't give us all three and is kind of antiquated.  It's a start/it's advocates' heart is in the right place, though.