General Discussion

thesquanderer

(13,011 posts)

45. How is that possible?

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 08:08 AM

Jul 2012

You say, "the commercial banking division should be required to maintain independent capitalization and ownership without actually requiring the bank to formally spin off the division into a true separate company."

How can it have independent ownership, but still be part of the same company? Whoever owns the company owns all of its divisions.

If the speculative side of things is not a completely separate company, then when that side loses billions, as long as it is part of the same legal entity, the "safe" side is on the hook. That's what creates the "too big too fail" scenario that requires government bailouts in the first place.

I don't see any reason why 13 years of creating merged businesses can't be un-done through the creation of spin-off companies. Once you have created the independent division that you say should be created anyway, why can't it be sold?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Restore Glass-Steagall [View all] UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 OP

Yep!... Simple and elegant. THAT is why they thrash so furiously annabanana Jul 2012 #1

Absolutely elleng Jul 2012 #2

Banks absolutely may gamble and play with our money Recursion Jul 2012 #4

It wasn't those banks that broke things Recursion Jul 2012 #3

I would say banks can do whatever they want 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #5

Makes perfect sense to me! ohgeewhiz Jul 2012 #8

I dont understand why it seems that the Ron Paul crowd is against this one Wondering Soul Jul 2012 #6

You just pointed out one more reason Ron Paul ohgeewhiz Jul 2012 #9

lol Wondering Soul Jul 2012 #11

The Ron Paul crowd are fascists Scootaloo Jul 2012 #40

Zero evidence lately that corporate Democrats are interested in doing this. woo me with science Jul 2012 #7

Makes you sick, UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 #13

Indeed. n/t Canuckistanian Jul 2012 #30

The Dems say 'no way'! Corporate stooges for self enrichment they all are-eom Huey P. Long Jul 2012 #10

Are you kidding? It took them almost a century to get us back here. n/t Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #12

...and transfer all your money to a credit union. L0oniX Jul 2012 #14

never will be Remember Jul 2012 #15

Only when a number the super-rich see that this is in their best interest, it is not going to happen AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #16

That's a keeper. nt.. boston bean Jul 2012 #17

REC. Rain Mcloud Jul 2012 #18

No - DON'T "restore Glass-Steagall"... brooklynite Jul 2012 #19

That's a very good point... UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 #21

Glass-Steagall is actually widely known dreamnightwind Jul 2012 #37

I agree that it should be restored davidpdx Jul 2012 #42

The formal name for it is the Banking Act of 1933 Scootaloo Jul 2012 #41

Call it "Making Banks Safe Again Act" or similar? MannyGoldstein Jul 2012 #43

Call it... bvar22 Jul 2012 #51

Call it the support babbies, apple pie and grandma act. UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 #52

Yeah, I guess this stuff has gotten out of hand MannyGoldstein Jul 2012 #56

Banking Reform Act, or BRA: Supporting our needs! chknltl Jul 2012 #55

Regulate investment banks, regulate derivatives, tax short duration financial transactions Fresh_Start Jul 2012 #20

K&R Mnemosyne Jul 2012 #22

I'll line up here, bvar22 Jul 2012 #23

Would that everything that should be done UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 #24

Not even a serious topic. They would have put it in Dodd-Frank banned from Kos Jul 2012 #25

Volcker Rule is stronger as far as legal definitions go, but it's weaker compared to ... Selatius Jul 2012 #38

How is that possible? thesquanderer Jul 2012 #45

Easy, require it be a joint-venture or a partnership between said entity and the parent company. Selatius Jul 2012 #57

Banks made investments and hedged before 1999 banned from Kos Jul 2012 #47

It's not satisfactory, in my opinion, because of that douche Scott Brown of Massachusetts. Selatius Jul 2012 #58

Oldie but goodie! FailureToCommunicate Jul 2012 #26

duh! nt tomp Jul 2012 #27

Feingold voted against Dodd-Frank because it did not go far enough. n/t slipslidingaway Jul 2012 #28

Great post! DrewFlorida Jul 2012 #29

I wish they would. ornotna Jul 2012 #31

Yes! DianaForRussFeingold Jul 2012 #32

I wept and howled when the idiots dumped it. So yes. aquart Jul 2012 #33

We will have momentum on our side as this scandal grows! Dustlawyer Jul 2012 #34

K&R suffragette Jul 2012 #35

Yes, we should but this is a fantasy with corporate Democrats and Republicans in charge. limpyhobbler Jul 2012 #36

All that's happened since sulphurdunn Jul 2012 #39

That's sadly probably true. UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 #44

I'll be surprised agent46 Jul 2012 #48

O ye of little faith UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 #50

Oh Me of Little Faith. bvar22 Jul 2012 #54

Repeal Graham-Bliley-Leach = Restored Glass-Steagall. n/t BumRushDaShow Jul 2012 #46

Restore the guillotine nichomachus Jul 2012 #49

+1000 HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #53

Post removed Post removed Jul 2012 #59

nice catch and welcome to DU Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #60

Ya like that, do ya, Tuesday UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 #62

Did the LaRouche nuts create that poster UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 #61

wow. Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #63

Wow what? UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 #64