A historian explains why Bernie Sanders is right about the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/a-historian-explains-why-bernie-sanders-is-right-about-the-1933-glass-steagall-act/Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are talking tough about Wall Street reform. But only Bernie Sanders is advocating a reprise of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, specifically that section of the Depression-era act that had prohibited commercial banks and investment banks from operating under the same roof. Sanders believes that the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 led to the formation of banks that became “too big to fail,” contributed to the financial crisis in 2008—and will lead to another crisis without corrective legislation.
Most observers think Sanders is on a quixotic quest and, with Wall Street’s political power, the chances of any revival of Glass-Steagall are, like his election to the presidency, slim. Yet Sanders has a strong argument, one that can be effectively made using Citigroup, the two-century old bank that, along with other Wall Street banks, has a history of wreaking havoc on itself and the economy when it mixes commercial banking with investment banking
(snip)
Even Sandy Weill—who once was proud to be referred to on Wall Street as the “Shatterer of Glass-Steagall”—now seems to agree. In a 2012 interview on CNBC he said, “What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking form banking. Have the banks do something that’s not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that’s not going to be too big to fail.”
------------------------
Bernie, correct again. Hillary, Wrong as usual.
= new reply since forum marked as read
The WTO GATS "General Agreement on Trade in Services"
clearly has a number of sections which limit domestic regulations on financial services.
---the rest is from Public Citizen-----
New memo on WTO conflict with measures to fight too big to fail banks
There are many ways that nations can check the growth of “too-big-to-fail” (TBTF) banks. One approach utilized in the past is adoption of firewalls between insurance firms, investment banks and commercial banks. This was used most famously in the United States through the Glass-Steagall Act from 1933 to 1999.
But various provisions of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) pose constraints on the type of size limitations a country may use. This is not surprising, since elimination of U.S. firewalls was a top priority for big banks in the original Uruguay Round GATS talks.
Moreover, Article 13.4 of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) contains virtually identical anti-size-limiting rules, as have many bilateral FTAs since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
here is the memo: https://www.citizen.org/documents/memo-gats-conflict-with-bank-size-limits-may-10-2011.pdf
Section I outlines the basic policy options and debates confronting policymakers who wish to solve the TBTF problem.
Section II outlines the relevant GATS (and by implication, FTA) rules, and their possible conflict with these TBTF policy solutions – whether in the form of firewalls, licensing procedures or outright size limits. Section III concludes by suggesting a number of policy fixes.
Finally, Appendix I looks at the negotiating history of what relevant financial policies the United States bound to the GATS, including records released in response to Public Citizen’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These documents show the disconnect between key U.S. negotiators and regulators during the Uruguay Round and subsequent financial services talks as to the reach of the core substantive obligations of the GATS. Appendix II details how the U.S. administered Glass-Steagall, which is useful for determining the exact intersection with GATS rules.
Bernie pushed for 
are not mutually exclusive
I'm having trouble getting past the disgust phase to being amused.
But I see you're already there, Fred. Good for you! 
Obviously in her twisted little mind - they haven't.
