Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Case Against Larry Summers [View all]questionseverything
(11,899 posts)16. end game
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/larry_summers_and_the_end-game_memo_20130825/
The year was 1997. US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was pushing hard to de-regulate banks. That required, first, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act to dismantle the barrier between commercial banks and investment banks. It was like replacing bank vaults with roulette wheels.
Second, the banks wanted the right to play a new high-risk game: derivatives trading. JP Morgan alone would soon carry $88 trillion of these pseudo-securities on its books as assets.
But their work wouldnt end there. Prudent financial controllers who wanted to protect their wealth rather than just get rich could simply move their investments to countries with safer banking laws. That would have to be changed. So the leaders of Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citibank and Chase Manhattan sought to eliminate controls on banks in every nation on the planet in one single move.
To do this, Palast writes, they used the Financial Services Agreement, an abstruse and benign addendum to the international trade agreements policed by the World Trade Organization.
Until the bankers began their play, Palast continues, the WTO agreements dealt simply with trade in goodsthat is, my cars for your bananas. The new rules ginned-up by Summers and the banks would force all nations to accept trade in badstoxic assets like financial derivatives.
Until the bankers re-draft of the FSA, each nation controlled and chartered the banks within their own borders. The new rules of the game would force every nation to open their markets to Citibank, JP Morgan and their derivatives products.
And all 156 nations in the WTO would have to smash down their own Glass-Steagall divisions between commercial savings banks and the investment banks that gamble with derivatives.
The banks then strong-armed the member nations into abandoning their previous trade-in-goods deals by threatening to block international sales of the nations key exports. Every single bullied nation signed.
The year was 1997. US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was pushing hard to de-regulate banks. That required, first, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act to dismantle the barrier between commercial banks and investment banks. It was like replacing bank vaults with roulette wheels.
Second, the banks wanted the right to play a new high-risk game: derivatives trading. JP Morgan alone would soon carry $88 trillion of these pseudo-securities on its books as assets.
But their work wouldnt end there. Prudent financial controllers who wanted to protect their wealth rather than just get rich could simply move their investments to countries with safer banking laws. That would have to be changed. So the leaders of Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citibank and Chase Manhattan sought to eliminate controls on banks in every nation on the planet in one single move.
To do this, Palast writes, they used the Financial Services Agreement, an abstruse and benign addendum to the international trade agreements policed by the World Trade Organization.
Until the bankers began their play, Palast continues, the WTO agreements dealt simply with trade in goodsthat is, my cars for your bananas. The new rules ginned-up by Summers and the banks would force all nations to accept trade in badstoxic assets like financial derivatives.
Until the bankers re-draft of the FSA, each nation controlled and chartered the banks within their own borders. The new rules of the game would force every nation to open their markets to Citibank, JP Morgan and their derivatives products.
And all 156 nations in the WTO would have to smash down their own Glass-Steagall divisions between commercial savings banks and the investment banks that gamble with derivatives.
The banks then strong-armed the member nations into abandoning their previous trade-in-goods deals by threatening to block international sales of the nations key exports. Every single bullied nation signed.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
30 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I love the constant feigning of ignorance. Or maybe it's not feigned at all. "I mean it's
Guy Whitey Corngood
Sep 2013
#1
Can you state an actual postive case for why Summers would be the best choice?
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2013
#5
But 'abject hatred' is just your hyperbolic characterization. To say 'should not
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2013
#13
Not just hate, but 'abject hate' and the gasp that it surprises her, this abject
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2013
#19