Meanwhile, in the parallel universe where Hillary got nominated...

[snoopy369]

Wait, you're quoting Bill's statement that his signing the bill didn't cause the crash, as evidence that it didn't cause the crash?

Next we'll be bringing out Nixon's "I am not a crook"

As far as I'm concerned, allowing commercial banks and investment banks to intermingle was the primary cause of the economic damage of the crash. Allowing investment banks to collapse and not be bought out by commercial banks would have been a fabulous thing in my opinion, as without some further regulation this is only going to get worse (maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for a really ****ing long time).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


That was already being done. Gramm-Leach-Bliley allowed commerical banks to engage in insurance underwriting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

Prior to the Act, most financial services companies were already offering both saving and investment opportunities to their customers. On the retail/consumer side, a bank called Norwest which would later merge with Wells Fargo Bank led the charge in offering all types of financial services products in 1986. American Express attempted to own almost every field of financial business (although there was little synergy among them). Things culminated in 1998 when Travelers, a financial services company with everything but a retail/commercial bank, bought out Citibank, creating the largest and the most profitable company in the world. The move was technically illegal and provided impetus for the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Also prior to the passage of the Act, there were many relaxations to the Glass-Steagall Act. For example, a few years earlier, commercial Banks were allowed to get into investment banking, and before that banks were also allowed to get into stock and insurance brokerage. Insurance underwriting was the only main operation they weren't allowed to do, something rarely done by banks even after the passage of the Act.

That says that they were offering investments to their customers. They can do that without investing in them themselves. Also, what kind of investments? CDs?

When they were able to buy up an investment bank that's when they were able to invest in derivatives.

Furthermore, even if it allowed commerical banks to own derivatives, do you not believe that investment banks would have owned a ton of derivatives anyway? Meaning that when the housing bubble collapsed, the investment banks would have completely tanked and wouldn't be able to be saved by commerical banks buying them out.

I'm not saying that this deregulation is what caused all of the derivative explosion. Yes, that would have happened anyway, but not to this extent. The commercial banks were using their profits to invest in investment banks. That allowed a lot more investment in derivatives.

What was really needed was more regulation, but also some deregulation contributed to the problem.

Furthermore:

"I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence."

- President Bill Clinton

Of course he's saying that. You don't expect him to take the blame for all this do you?

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Furthermore, no worrying about the Bradley effect.

whazzat?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
When they were able to buy up an investment bank that's when they were able to invest in derivatives.

Not really true. If you read Section 201 - 241 of Title II of Gramm-Leich-Bliley, it says:

allows banks to continue to be active participants in the derivatives business for all credit and equity swaps (other than equity swaps to retail customers);

And Subtitle A of Title II:

These specific exemptions provide for certain activities in which banks have traditionally engaged. These exceptions relate to third-party networking arrangements, trust activities, traditional banking transactions such as commercial paper and exempted securities, employee and shareholder benefit plans, sweep accounts, affiliates transactions, private placements, safekeeping and custody services, assetbacked securities, derivatives and identified banking products.

Furthermore this type of stuff is what is already allowed in Europe and has been for years and they haven't faced a crisis like this until we did.

Of course he's saying that. You don't expect him to take the blame for all this do you?

What I'm saying is of course Obama isn't going to go off on GLB. He'd have to get into a war of words with President Clinton and that'd not be a great political move.

--

whazzat?

The idea that black candidates poll better than the votes they get on election day because people don't want to admit their racist tendancies over the phone to a pollster.

[Bosh]

Probably the biggest source of the credit problems is simply such low interest rates for so long that people borrowed lots and lots and lots of money because it was so cheap (simple supply and demand) and nobody bothered to do anything about dealing with possible downsides of this when they should have seen it coming (since it's a good bit like what hit Japan in the early 90's).

As far as how Hillary would be doing that would depend massively on how the primaries turned out and specifically how and when Hillary won them.

[Victor Galis]

I suspect Hillary would be doing better in the rust belt right now, but worse in other battlegrounds like VA.

[Ben Kenobi]

She'd be doing far better.

1. Arkansas is in play.
2. Louisiana is in play.
3. West Virginia is in play.
4. Missouri is in play.
5. Florida is in play.
6. Ohio she would be leading.

Michigan would be solid, as are Wisconsin and Minnesota. Same with Washington.

She would sew up Pennsylvania too.

Obama brings Colorado, and that's it. That's the only state that he brings to the table that Hillary would not. Neither of them would bring Indiana, just because it's Indiana.

Virginia isn't going Obama, unfortunately. Sorry Obamaphiles.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Not really true. If you read Section 201 - 241 of Title II of Gramm-Leich-Bliley, it says:

Well you make a valid point, however the wiki page that you point to states that the previous deregulation was done on Bill Clinton's watch. And then Clinton and Congress passed further deregulation with the Gramm-Leich-Bliley Act. What they should have been doing is passing good regulation to prevent what was happening.

Furthermore this type of stuff is what is already allowed in Europe and has been for years and they haven't faced a crisis like this until we did.

What does that matter? They are in a crisis now. When you design your economy to take excessive risk like that you are just playing a game with time. That's why I now strongly oppose the bailout. All it is going to do is encourage further investment in risk, because investors now expect to be bailed out no matter how much risk they take.

[Boris Godunov]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
She'd be doing far better.

2. Louisiana is in play.

Why's that? Bill Clinton won Louisiana largely based on the African-American vote. As Ming pointed out, its extremely unlikely Hillary would benefit from a large AA turnout, given the tenor of the primaries.

4. Missouri is in play.

It's in play now. Obama was up in the latest polls.

5. Florida is in play.

Obama currently is leading in Florida.

6. Ohio she would be leading.

Obama currently has a small lead in Ohio.

Michigan would be solid, as are Wisconsin and Minnesota. Same with Washington.

Obama is leading by double digits in all of these states now.

She would sew up Pennsylvania too.

Latest polls have Obama up 10-15. That's pretty sewn up.

Obama brings Colorado, and that's it.

I That's the only state that he brings to the table that Hillary would not. Neither of them would bring Indiana, just because it's Indiana.

Virginia isn't going Obama, unfortunately. Sorry Obamaphiles.

Currently, Indiana is a dead heat. That means it's in play. And so is North Carolina, which Clinton would have no hope of winning. I also think Iowa would be a toss-up rather than solidly Obama. And Obama is winning Virginia--he's averaging a 4-5 pt lead there now. Clinton wouldn't be close.

Obama has also moved ahead in Nevada, and I don't think Clinton would be doing as well there. Nor in New Mexico.

[Ming]

Thank you Boris... I almost died laughing reading Ben's post. I was going to respond state by state, but you already did a great job.

Obama was a much better pick for the Dems. I don't think Hillary would be in as good position as Obama is now, and would probably be lossing.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Bill is telling the press that the deregulation of 1999 didn't cause the economic crisis.

Bill is right, as usual.

[Ninot]

of the Republican Americans that I know, they all detest Hillary very very much. Nominating her would motivate the Republican base more than selecting Palin as the VP

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ming
Thank you Boris... I almost died laughing reading Ben's post. I was going to respond state by state, but you already did a great job.

Obama was a much better pick for the Dems. I don't think Hillary would be in as good position as Obama is now, and would probably be lossing.

No one has ever accused Ben of having the foggiest idea what he's talking about when it comes to U.S. politics.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


No one has ever accused Ben of having the foggiest idea what he's talking about.

fixed

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Virginia isn't going Obama, unfortunately. Sorry Obamaphiles.

The latest CNN poll of polls has Obama leading McCain 49 percent to 45 percent. A CNN/TIME/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted September 28-30 shows Obama with an even bigger lead over McCain, 53 percent to 44 percent. The CNN poll's margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.