Market Currents
"For all of the rhapsodizing about the halcyon days of Glass-Steagall, the statute was far...
-
Sunday, July 29, 2012, 8:01 AM ET"For all of the rhapsodizing about the halcyon days of Glass-Steagall, the statute was far weaker than its advocates care to admit," writes Jason Zweig in the WSJ. That taxpayers are bailing out banks that take massive risks "was partly caused by Glass-Steagall, not by its repeal."
Other date
Latest Articles on Financials
This news story has 5 comments:
Me doth think Mr Zweig...is this a relationship to Marty?....needs to study history just a bit more. Just because you read it on the internet doesn't make it fact, or true.
Man this is Brilliant as our brothers across the pond like to say!
My comment was directed at the article, not you!
Rock on...
"For starters, we could trim deposit insurance...How many Americans need the first $250,000 in their deposits insured? If the coverage were cut back to $100,000 or less, says Prof. White, depositors would pay more attention to the solvency of their banks, and banks would have to promote their financial strength."
You would think that if deposit insurance was higher that the regulators would be keeping a closer eye on the banks. Or even the banks themselves, since they fund the FDIC. I can't see how the average mom & pop would be able to figure out if a bank was solvent or not.