What's the difference deregulating big business like banking or bitcoin vs small business?

Quote: Tanko

Regulation is necessary. Especially when it comes to the banks.

Which is why banks are highly regulated. I hear people say the banks were "deregulated" in the late 1990s and wonder what they are talking about. We had regs left and right.

Same libs who want more regs want to defund the police, as you seem to say.

Quote: AZDuffman

I hear people say the banks were "deregulated" in the late 1990s and wonder what they are talking about. We had regs left and right.

We had regs until 1999 when Glass-Steagal was repealed, and in 2000 when Clinton signed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which was passed to keep derivatives unregulated.

‘How Deregulating Derivatives Led to Disaster’

Those two Acts, led to the financial crisis in 2008.

In 1999 the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, repealed Glass-Steagal, which was intended to prevent banks from becoming so large, their failure would be catastrophic.

Which is exactly what happened nine years later.

‘With the passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. Furthermore, it failed to give to the SEC or any other financial regulatory agency the authority to regulate large investment bank holding companies.”

A rule in the Dodd-Frank bill of 2010, to require derivatives to be centrally cleared by a clearing house, and move them out of federally insured banks, was repealed in 2014.

Thanks to Citibank lobbyists, banks can own trillions in derivatives, federally insured. JP Morgan alone owns $60 trillion in derivatives. Goldman Sachs owns $50 trillion, and Citibank owns $46 trillion. See Pg. 18.

“Bank Of America Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On U.S. Taxpayers With Federal Approval”

Quote: Tanko

We had regs until 1999 when Glass-Steagal was repealed, and in 2000 when Clinton signed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which was passed to keep derivatives unregulated.

We still had lots of regs after that. I had to deal with them. Derivatives likewise were not in and of themselves a problem. The problem was simple bad risk management. I lived it on the mortgage side. People saying their homes were worth so much more and the banks bending over backward to make that work. And being too cheap to do real valuations.

True story, after we merged with another bank we started using their "Broker Price Opinion" as a valuation for 2nd mortgages. We went from either a 1004 or the alternative "drive by" alternative which was outside only but both pulled comps and had lots of detail to a single page with minimal information.

First one I get I put in the file and send it down the line. UW comes back and asks "what the hell is this?" I tell them that is the new BPO form. They ask how they are supposed to use it to assess risk. I reply that I have no idea, I just put what is ordered in the file.

And we were one of the better risk managers in the industry! And this says nothing about actual fraud.

Derivatives are good products used right. I will be trading some today when the markets open. But they are like a Corvette. Driven right it is not unsafe, that being said it should not be a teenager's first car.

Quote: Tanko

We had regs until 1999 when Glass-Steagal was repealed, and in 2000 when Clinton signed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which was passed to keep derivatives unregulated.

‘How Deregulating Derivatives Led to Disaster’

Those two Acts, led to the financial crisis in 2008.

In 1999 the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, repealed Glass-Steagal, which was intended to prevent banks from becoming so large, their failure would be catastrophic.

Which is exactly what happened nine years later.

‘With the passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. Furthermore, it failed to give to the SEC or any other financial regulatory agency the authority to regulate large investment bank holding companies.”

A rule in the Dodd-Frank bill of 2010, to require derivatives to be centrally cleared by a clearing house, and move them out of federally insured banks, was repealed in 2014.

Thanks to Citibank lobbyists, banks can own trillions in derivatives, federally insured. JP Morgan alone owns $60 trillion in derivatives. Goldman Sachs owns $50 trillion, and Citibank owns $46 trillion. See Pg. 18.

“Bank Of America Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On U.S. Taxpayers With Federal Approval”

Did Trump do anything to fix this??????????????
You must be furious at Trump for dropping the ball :-)

Quote: AZDuffman

Derivatives likewise were not in and of themselves a problem. The problem was simple bad risk management.

Which you get when there is poor regulation, and their bad bets are federally insured and backed by the working stiffs.

Derivatives risks destroyed AIG, Bear Stearns, Enron and Lehman, among others. It contributed to the financial crisis in 2008. Which we still have not recovered from.

Now, thanks to the repeal of GS, we may see more bank failures caused by Crypto. If they do fail, we taxpayers will be bailing them out.

Trump called for the re-instatement of GS in 2017, and four Senators introduced a 21st century version of GS, to protect the American taxpayers, but it never made it out of Committee.

Quote: Tanko

Trump called for the re-instatement of GS in 2017, and four Senators introduced a 21st century version of GS, to protect the American taxpayers, but it never made it out of Committee.

"called for" seems incredibly weak
Why didn't he demand and fight for it
"called for" is wishy washy
"called for" don't mean jack in DC
Didn't Trump call for Mexico to pay for the wall
Shows how much "called for" is worth :-)