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

still_one

(98,883 posts)

3. That is pretty much what he said also, though he did say Europe was trying to bring their version

Reply to ljm2002 (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:12 AM

Jun 2012

back, but the amount of damage caused by its repeal, and the damn revisionists who parade across these financial shows day in and day out, saying it had nothing to do with the financial crisis, are so full of hog wash

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Really surprising, Arthur Levitt on Bloomberg today said they should have never gotten rid of Glass- [View all] still_one Jun 2012 OP

Well better late than never, I guess... ljm2002 Jun 2012 #1

That is pretty much what he said also, though he did say Europe was trying to bring their version still_one Jun 2012 #3

The systematic risk is because the entire financial system is tied together through counterparties. dkf Jun 2012 #2

no, but Levitt did say the Europeans are trying to bring a version of Glass Steagal there. It also still_one Jun 2012 #4

Haha that makes me lol. dkf Jun 2012 #5

Banks should be banks and investment firms should be investment firms. It's a simple equation. HopeHoops Jun 2012 #6