Talk:Glass–Steagall legislation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Chronology of the acts and leaving the Gold Standard

It says that it took the US off the Gold Standard, but at the bottom it mentions that that act was in fact totally different and happened later. Which is it? Because that is an unclear definition and I need to know the difference for an exam. Can someone please edit it?

the version is wrong. I'm trying to post a new one. In short:

There are two Glass Steagall Acts. The one from 1933 is also called Banking Act of 1933, and it is the more important one. Literature in economics usually refers to the 1933 act.

  • First Glass Steagall Act of February 1932

This act allowed that government obligations as well as commercial paper can be used as reserve in banks. Therefore, banks were able to increase credit, and more money was in circulation. It was enacted under President Herbert Hoover. Do not confuse this act with the second Glass Steagall Act of 1933.

See:[1]
  • Second Glass-Steagall Act (officially called: Banking Act of 1933) (June 16, 1933)

This act introduced the separation of bank types according to their business (commercial and investment banking), and it founded the Federal Deposit Insurance Company for insuring bank deposits. In modern literature usually this is referred to as the Glass Steagall Act, since it had a stronger impact on US banking regulation.

See
Original Text of the act: "Banking Act of 1933", (= Glass Steagall Act), in: Walsh, Gerard P. Jr. (ed.), Federal Reserve Act of 1913. With Amendments and Laws Relating to Banking, Washington 1981, pp. 163-199.A pdf is available here (downloading takes a while): [2]
"Understanding How Glass-Steagall Act Impacts Investment Banking and the Role of Commercial Banks"

Do not confuse those two acts with this one:

  • Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933 (March 9, 1933)

This act authorizes President Roosevelt to forbid hoarding of gold coins. It authorizes the Treasury to request all people and companies of the U.S. to send in their gold reserves (transportation will be paid by the Treasury.) In addition, this act rules that all banks stop their business (bank holiday) until the Comptroller of the Currency has examined the soundness of such banks and has approved reopening. This act has nothing to do with the Glass Steagall Acts, however, it has often been mixed up.

See:
President Franklin Roosevelt's Bank Holiday Declaration, 1933
Original Text of the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933

Repeal of the Act

Rossy65 (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Ross T0add to the discussion below, I think the Repeal of the Act section is incomplete... , there was also the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, signed by Jimmy Carter? Or Ronald Reagan in 1980. This seems to be the first major change in the Glass-Steagall Act. Also in 1982 Ronald Reagan signed the Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act Which also had an impact on the act. Rossy65 (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC) end of my post

This section is the biggest pile of garbage I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Can we just reference the page on [Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act] and kill the rest of the section?

"Citigroup, which has fallen 36 percent since reporting in January the biggest quarterly loss in its 196-year history, may have writedowns of $15 billion this quarter, according to New York-based Merrill Lynch & Co. That would add to the $22 billion that Citigroup already lost because of the housing slump."

January of WHAT year?

66.108.217.8 (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


This sections has facts. It states some opinion but also clearly states that the opinions are widely held. It then goes on to list pro's and con's... I think this discussion is a farce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.50.51 (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"This section is the biggest pile of garbage I've ever seen on Wikipedia." You forgot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.99.72 (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bovine Scatology

Statement: "The Act was repealed with President Clinton's signiture."

Reply: The repeal was veto-proof. Clinton had no choice. Do your homework. But please learn to spell first.

Statement: "The objector here is clearly an Obama supporter so am I but in the intrest of NEUTRALITY I avoid this policital crap."

Reply: You also seem to have avoided any attempt by teachers to educate you.


The Glass-Steagall Act was never repealed. The provision separating commercial and investment banks was. But the FDIC still exists, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.241.133 (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

HOW CAN THERE BE ANY SECTION REGARDING 'REPEAL' OF GLASS-STEGALL WITHOUT ALSO MENTIONING GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY???!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaBet678 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Duplication of Emergency Banking Act?

There is a section about the Emergency Banking Act, but I believe that already has its own article titled Emergency Banking Act. I will go ahead and remove the passage in this article about the Emergency Banking Act. Mazin07C₪T 00:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This article deserves a "high" importance rating

In light of current ecomomic tumult in the United States in 2008, this article deserves a high importance rating.Critical Chris (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - I'm no expert, but I think there should be a "Hindsight" section where we review the impact of repealing this act on the US and global financial events of Sept. and Oct. 2008. Isabelwh (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.75.188 (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Legislative History

My understanding is that Gramm-Leach-Bliley 1999 passed 54-44 along party lines [S. 900, Vote #105, 5/6/99], this page says that it was bipartisan 90-8-1. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.210.150 (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act#Legislative history and the footnotes to the roll calls. The initial version passed in May with Ernest Hollings (D-SC) joining 53 Republicans in support, and the other 44 Democrats voting against. It went over to the House, which passed it on a voice vote after a minority of Republicans joined almost all the Democrats on instructing the conference committee with the Senate. The version as amended by the conference committee passed the Senate on a vote of 90-8 (Richard Shelby, R-Alab. + 7 Democrats) and the House by a vote of 362-57 (51 D + 5 R + Bernard Sanders, Ind-Vt) on Nov. 4th. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Consolidated Discussions of Glass-Robinson colloquy

Problems in "Background" section

The Background section was clearly cut-and-pasted from another document (which is cited) but is written in such a way that it is unclear that it is a quote. As it is written now it attributes to Wikipedia opinions that rightfully originate with the FDIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.181.206 (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I need to pull up the secondary source to see what happened but it pastes together part of a Senate colloquy (probably cited in a legal opinion) and an unreferenced judicial decision, which uses "Id." (= ibidem) referring to something else (perhaps pages of the Congressional Record) already cited in an earlier part not included here. It's not that this is inherently bad material, but it needs more context for the reader and understanding by the editor(s) to make it useful. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Absurdity cubed

The article's Background section begins as follows:

"Senator Carter Glass (Democrat of Virginia), co-sponsor of the bill that became the Glass-Steagall Act, and Senator Joseph T. Robinson (Democrat of Arkansas):

Mr. Glass: Here [section 21] we prohibit the large private banks whose chief business is investment business, from receiving deposits. We separate them from the deposit banking business.

Mr. Robinson of Arkansas: That means if they wish to receive deposits they must have separate institutions for that purpose?

Mr. Glass: Yes.

The Court also rejected . . ."

Since this is *background*, it is ultra-ridiculous to begin the section with a conversation for which no context is offered. Then suddenly we are told "The court also . . ." Huh? What court? (Maybe a line was accidentally dropped?)

Perhaps someone knowledgeable on the subject can insert an explanation, rather than leaving the brief dialogue without any explanation of where it occurred (and why).Daqu (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

See the comments just above yours in Talk:Glass-Steagall Act#Problems in "Background" section —— Shakescene (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Conversation?

Is that conversation on this page an actual conversation between Glass and Steagall? Is it from senate records? Or is it just something someone put up there as a hypothetical discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.153.159.29 (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

See above, #Problems in "Background" Section —— Shakescene (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The conversation is out of order and of questionable informative value. Perhaps the last paragraph is a better lead as Background:

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, bankers and brokers were sometimes indistinguishable. Then, in the Great Depression after 1929, Congress examined the mixing of the “commercial” and “investment” banking industries that occurred in the 1920s. Hearings revealed conflicts of interest and fraud in some banking institutions’ securities activities. The Glass Steagall Act.[5] established barriers to the mixing of these activities.

Ibyte78 (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)ibyte78

Cutting the Gordian Knot (Feb. 2009)

I finally lost hope (after months) that this would become clearer in the near future and just deleted the whole thing. It's important because it deals with the question of whether bank holding companies are allowed to own both consumer and investment banks simultaneously, but it just needs explanation and citation that hasn't come forth; it also needs to find a better place in the article. (It may well be that it was originally well-placed, well-explained and well-sourced, but gradually lost those attributes to the typical attrition of endless Wikipedia edits.) You can still retrieve this extract by pulling the article's history just before my edits of February 13-14, 2009, and get some idea of the question from its footnote to this FDIC statement of policy: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/5000-1900.html —— Shakescene (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Legacy/Consequences

I am very surprised that this article doesn't already have a section dealing with the legacy and/or consequences of the Act -- and in light of recent history, of its repeal. A glaring deficiency, I'd say. Cgingold (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of that is dealt with at Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. And since Wikipedia articles are collaborative efforts, rather than any one person's responsibilty, please feel free to go right ahead and start writing such a section. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What is it?

The intro of the article says that it created an insurance thing. This has to be changed to this: The Glass-Steagall Act was an act that prohibited... What is it? Clammybells

Proposed merger to Glass–Steagall Act[1]

May 10, 2010 at 8:35am EDT, Arthur Wilmarth, Jr., of the George Washington University Law School presented an excellent overview of the Glass-Steagall Act as it pertains to the 2010 economy and banking on C-Span's Washington Journal. This video can be found on their archive shortly after the airing.

But the true topic herein is that this page needs to be merged into the present page located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act, since:

1. The later page is a duplicate of the more informative page cited at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

2. Two pages need not exist since the reference at http://law.jrank.org/pages/7165/Glass-Steagall-Act.html supports the idea that #1 is a duplication.

Paradiver (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears you're referring to the same page. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://law.jrank.org/pages/7165/Glass-Steagall-Act.html

"Blame" Attribution Note

I added an attribution to "...has been blamed for exacerbating the damage caused by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market that led to the Financial crisis of 2007–2010." I based that on the following quote from the linked article: "This is much more profound and much more far-reaching because it really deals with the new financial world that was created in a way by the end of Glass-Steagall." I will not be offended if consensus says the quote is too weak an attribution for the statement and the specific attribution is removed. However, there are DOZENS of articles in mainstream sites that tie some of the blame for the current crisis to the wind-down of Glass-Steagall. I chose this one because it seemed the most concise. Reinserting the WP:ATT tag is probably not realistic any more, even if a debate over WHICH source (or set of sources) to cite is appropriate. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Gratuitous ad for the Think-tank "CEE Council"

Think-tanks such as the CEE Council have ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.11.66 (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lede

I have a feeling that the ever-expanding lede is losing sight of the subject of the article itself. The last paragraph has been getting larger and larger for the last six months, to the point where the lede now spends more time describing the after-effects of the Act's repeal than it does on the Act itself. I haven't seen a better version of that paragraph since this edit in June. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.229.34 (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The last five revisions are all changes to the tone by altering or removing words like "may have caused" or "directly caused". The source for this section is an editorial which seems like a very week source for any such bold statement. I believe much of it is people with strong political feelings altering it to their liking. Nitwit005 (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


I have added some scholarly sources that challenge the idea that the "repeal of Glass-Steagall," which is actually the repeal of the provision separating commercial and investment banks, directly contributed to the 2007-2010 financial crisis. These claims are nearly always attributable to popular sources without evidence. I have revised to note that there is debate over this issue, which there is, I guess (bloggers vs. academics). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.241.133 (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Impact on 2007-2011 financial crisis

I reverted an edit which deleted the view that the repeal of the act may not have had a significant impact on the financial crisis.[3] I have no opinion of my own, but this view is well-supported and needs to be included too. The linkage between the repeal and the crisis cannot be proven arithmetically, and will always be a surmise at best, so it's appropriate to say it may have had an effect.   Will Beback  talk  19:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps your understanding of these events is lacking depth. I don't have the time nor the space to explain to you how the removal of the Glass-Steagall Act directly affected the housing and insurance markets. However, once you familiarize yourself with the facts surrounding this financial "pyramid scam" concerning credit default swaps, predatory loans, fake S&P credit ratings, fraudulent insurance policies, etc., the only reasonable conclusion would be that system was set up to fail by allowing banks to gamble with people's savings instead of keeping them separate. This was by no means the only cause, however, it was a major contributor to the crash and the eventual blackmailing of U.S. taxpayers by the major banks and investment firms. THC Loadee 15:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by THC Loadee (talk • contribs)

With regards to the impact of the repeal of the act on the 08 Financial crisis, we need to cite better sources that show this. The second paragraph uses citations 4-9, hardly any of which are helpful. Some don't even mention the issues, and, even worse, #8 argues that the repeal DIDN't have a major effect on the crisis (claiming that regular investment banks failed as much or more than the commercial banks). Cowsop 23:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowsop (talk • contribs)

Introduction

"Most economists believe". Have we polled all economists to support this invented generalization ? "... by the investment firms.[4][5][6][7][8][9]", several of these references have no relevance to the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.0.181 (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Citations and Overall

There are no citations to primary documents. Why is there no link to the 1933 Banking Act: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/usc_sec_12_00000227----000-notes.html http://www.archive.org/details/FullTextTheGlass-steagallActA.k.a.TheBankingActOf1933

This article has more to do with Gramm-Leach-Bliley than the Banking Act of 1933. Why is there no information about the process of passage, the debates, etc? Why is there such limited reference to the provisions of the Act that changed the law? There is no discussion of changes in bank branching rules, no discussion of changes in interest rate regulations (i.e. Regulation Q), no mention of restrictions on making new banks, etc.

The article needs to reflect the text of the Act, the intent of the Act, the political and economic context of its passage, and then there needs to be mention of later statutes and regulations that superseded or repealed Glass-Steagall. These priorities are reversed in the article, as it stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.40.247 (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

_______ Hey guys, the link to the CRS' 1987 report by William D. Jackson is broken. Allow me to post one which is working: http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9065/m1/1/high_res_d/IB87061_1987Jun29.pdf

Took me quite a while to find. Also, I am not familiar, how this editing process works, so I kindly asks whoever sees this to fix the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.56.81.75 (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Kalle Lasn quote resource, relating to the Occupy movement

Mr. Lasn has long believed that Wall Street and vast corporate wealth have sent the United States into what he calls “terminal decline.” But unlike many people involved in the protests, he also has specific goals he would like to see reached. He wants to see, among other things, “a Robin Hood tax” on all financial transactions, a restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act that erected barriers between banking and investing, a ban on certain types of high-frequency trading and the overturning of the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case.

99.190.86.93 (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

translation into chinese wikipedia

The 05:40, 30 December 2011‎ Hmains version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand an existing article.--Wing (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

February 28, 2012 edit

Length

I would have split the article into two, one on the 1933 Banking Act and another on the separation of commercial and investment banking (what became the “Glass-Steagall Act”), but I didn’t want to make such a major change. I see this article is linked to the creation of the FDIC.

The current Sections 1-4 of the article could serve as a separate 1933 Banking Act article. There is actually much more that could be said about the 1933 Banking Act. It is an interesting topic. The 1935 Banking Act probably also deserves an article.

Perhaps I’ve given too much attention to what happened under Glass-Steagall from 1933-1999, but it seems inadequate to simply state that the restrictions “eroded.”

Without looking at the expanded article closely, 290 kilobytes is really pushing right against the absolute length limits of Wikipedia:Article size. Remember that Wikipedia readers in different countries use all kinds of devices, some with very small memories and processors, and use all kinds of connections (a significant number still, I think, being on telephone dial-up). No service is rendered by crashing their systems or taking inordinately long times to load. That's separate from the question of how many readers will read all the way through the article, something that doesn't apply to very long entries that are mainly tables, lists or statistics (e.g. New York City mayoral elections). The different acts and major sections need to split up into different articles, and if a single shorter article tying them all together is advisable, it could be written in WP:summary style (see, for example, History of New York City). Compare this article's length and structure to those of far more important ones, such as World War II, France, the Solar System and Christianity. But I welcome filling out the many gaps in the original article. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Retention of material from existing article

I retained the existing article's emphasis on the 1987 CRS report in specifying the arguments for and against Glass-Steagall repeal, but I corrected the quoted wording of that report.

I also retained the reference to Nicolas Firzli’s views on Glass-Steagall although we still don’t have those views in English. I have put it in the context of the European tradition of universal banking and the current debate over the UK ringfencing proposal.

Similarly, I retained Elizabeth Warren’s Jon Stewart interview, although that seems unfair to her. It’s been in the article for a long time. I summarized what she said, which is consistent with David Moss and, to a lesser extent, Simon Johnson.

The statement in the existing article that Glass-Steagall “repeal” permitted banks to become involved with MBS, CDOs, and SIVs was incorrect and was contradicted, not supported, by the footnoted Barth et al paper. The article now correctly cites that paper as stating the GLBA “ratified and extended changes that had already been made.” The Barth paper gives details. The article also now describes the history of commercial bank involvement with MBS, CDOs, and SIVs before the GLBA.

There is an enormous scholarly literature on the 1933 Banking Act and on what became known as Glass-Steagall. I have inserted some of those sources and not retained all of the blog and newspaper sources that were used as the basis for the existing article. Much of the information about Glass, 1933, and FDR in the revised article is probably surprising, but I could not find any scholarly disagreement on the details. The problem seems to be brief accounts written later that just assumed a different background. EAFAAT (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

March 17, 2012 edit

Aside from clean-up of my 2/28 edit I only intended to correct the change made to the 1932 Glass-Steagall Act description. Exigent circumstances was correct for part of the lending authority (I couldn't find the source for the incorrect change) but I've expanded the description to cover both lending authorizations. I don't know why all the intervening changes didn't show, so I'll check that what I posted didn't miss some corrections that hadn't shown on the history page. EAFAAT (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

April 9, 2012 edit

I added a link I'd not included in footnote 284. In doing so, I noticed wording about Wall Street firms gambling with bank depositor funds had been reinserted into the lede. I don't know whether that is language that has been reinserted and removed since I made the big revision to this article in February. Because this might be an "editing war" thing that will come out, I did not correct the formatting for the 6 footnotes that were added to support this statement. Obviously, it is important to some editors of this article that the statement be included. I agree many people have made that statement. It is incorrect, however, to suggest Kuttner, Stiglitz, or Warren make that argument in the materials cited for their statements that the GLBA contributed to the financial crisis. I, therefore, separated the two points into two sentences. I did not add a reference to refutations of that position. The refutation is contained in various parts of the article, which explain "Wall Street" investment banks did not become bank holding companies (before the crisis) and that whatever bank deposits they held were in ILCs and other "nonbanks" that were not authorized by the GLBA. The article's section on the financial crisis gives examples of commentators who have noted many GLBA critics do not understand the distinction between a commercial bank and an investment bank nor the distinction between a bank holding company and other financial firms. EAFAAT (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The "hyphen" in the URL can break links when posted in forums.

The hyphen in Glass("hypen")Steagall is not really a hyphen. It's a special dash the en dash, n dash, n-rule, or "nut" (–) and since it's unicode "%E2%80%93" it can break URLs when the link is posted in forums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllThatJazz2012 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see MOS:DASH. IMHO, this differentiation between a hyphen and an en-dash, is not something I see, but I'm generally staying out of this. - Denimadept (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Bank regulation in the United States template

For some reason, the template Template:Bank regulation in the United States is showing up as a link to Template:Navbox for me in the External links section. I'm not sure why this is happening, and I'm not sure how to fix it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Corrected reference and further reading lists. Proposal to shorten article by creating separate 1933 Banking Act article

The article was somehow revised so that the notes were labelled as references, the references as further reading, and the further reading as notes. The labels are now correct. Maybe I'm missing a Wikipedia style issue, but the list of references is definitely not the further reading list and the further reading list is definitely not the notes.

More important, does anyone object if I shorten the article by creating a separate article on the 1933 Banking Act? The 1933 Banking Act article would have most of the text that is in the first part of the current Glass-Steagall article (through section 4.6) and the Glass-Steagall article would cover what is in Sections 5 to the end of the article (i.e., "the Glass-Steagall provisions separating commercial and investment banking" to the end) with some introductory language. I think this would shorten the Glass-Steagall article by about 20%. If no one objects, I'll make the change in a few days. Obviously, if I make the change anyone could revert the article back to its existing condition and eliminate the new 1933 Banking Act article if the change doesn't seem helpful. EAFAAT (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirect problems in splitting article into 1933 Banking Act and Glass-Steagall articles

As I suggested earlier, I split the article into a separate article on the 1933 Banking Act and this article focused on the “Glass–Steagall” provisions of that law. It seems to me anyone looking to read about “Glass–Steagall” is interested in those provisions, not the other parts of the 1933 Banking Act. The links to the new article should allow readers to find that material.

Unfortunately, while I was able to post the 1933 Banking Act article[1]the redirect from Banking Act of 1933 still seems to override. ClueBot NG undid my attempt to redirect that page to the new article. I'm trying to get that fixed. Maybe someone can help, so that the references in this article to the 1933 Banking Act work.

Deposits and gambling

I retained the statement in the article’s introduction that “Some critics of that repeal argue it permitted Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in affiliated commercial banks,” although the only footnote I found that supported the statement doesn’t quite say that. I didn’t want to revise the article’s language because I agree that statement has been made by many people. I deleted four source previously cited for that statement, because they did not mention gambling with deposits. The Daily Kos post attacks Clinton’s role in the GLBA and doesn’t mention deposits or gambling.[2]The Investopedia cite is to a 2003 article that concludes “the reasons for the repeal of the GSA and the establishment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act show that even regulatory attempts for safety can have adverse effects. “[3]The Kevin Drum/Mother Jones cite actually dismissed the argument that the GLBA played a role in the financial crisis.[4]The Lenderwatch cite describes the GLBA as permitting consolidation but does not mention deposits or gambling.[5]In the Roubini interview he supports reinstating Glass-Steagall but does not mention deposits or gambling.[6]

Clinton “irrelevant” statement

In the introduction I also revised the Clinton quote to what appears in the transcript of the Frontline episode that served as the source for the previous language (he seems to have said “inappropriate” not “irrelevant”). The footnote also quotes the complete transcript of Clinton’s remarks. I did find two cites that use the term “irrelevant”[7] Since they are recent, I hope their source was not this article. Maybe someone can find a source specifying when (if) he said “irrelevant.” EAFAAT (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Banking_Act
  2. ^ digitalmuse (March 17, 2008), Banking Deregulation and Clinton, Daily Kos
  3. ^ What was the Glass–Steagall Act?, Investopedia, July 16, 2003
  4. ^ Drum, Kevin (March 25, 2009), The repeal of Glass–Steagall, MotherJones
  5. ^ Blake, Timothy (March 17, 2008), Clinton repeal of Glass–Steagall faulty as seen today, lenderwatch
  6. ^ Carter, Zach (May 17, 2010), Nouriel Roubini: How to break up the banks, stop massive bonuses, and rein in Wall Street greed, AlterNet
  7. ^ Swedroe, Larry (October 8, 2012), Where is today's "Hellhound of Wall Street"?, Moneywatch, retrieved October 9, 2012. Wailes, Kathleen (July 26, 2012), Is Sandy Weil right?, Seeking Alpha, retrieved October 9, 2012.

Breaking out the article sections to reduce length

The too-long tag was added was added March 4: 245,474 bytes.--Jerzy•t 04:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Even with separate articles on the 1933 act and the Glass-Steagall sections of 1933, this article was still quite long. I went bold, and took out the fairly-self contained five page section that describes the legislation itself (content of the four sections) and its analysis (effects and loopholes). I left in a short (less than half page) summary in the original section three, with a {{main}} section hatnote to the new page.

The stub summary could probably do with a little vleanup and adding back of references. If anyone has the time/patience, please do! However, please try to keep the section short.

Next up: I think the repeal effort could be a fairly easy breakout as well. Once that's done, the article might be reasonable on its own.
-- Dovid (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sections are: Glass–Steagall: decline and Glass–Steagall: legislation, limits and loopholes. their placement in the article may need adjustment.
--Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
When you were both finished, 134,245 bytes--Jerzy•t 04:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I have added two additional articles:
  • on decline (removes content from 2 sections, including 1935-1999 repeal)
  • aftermath of repeal (removes content from 3 sections)
We're down to a relatively svelte 24 pages when printed on letter.
Dovid (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
103,773--Jerzy•t 04:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
   In absolute terms, IMO it's still morbidly obese. I've written a SIA The Glass–Steagall Acts, which does without much of the detail of Glass–Steagall legislation#Name confusion: 1932 and 1933 Glass–Steagall Acts (which sounds like a contributor thot they were writing a hard-copy monograph, and didn't understand that 'pedia articles can and should lean on the other articles), and BTW i think it can be lk'd from a HatNote. More work ahead.
--Jerzy•t 04:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
100,609--Jerzy•t 05:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
   Disappointing but not discouraging.
--Jerzy•t 05:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

References in Media / Popular Culture

In the fifth episode of HBO's The Newsroom, entitled "Amen", the Glass-Steagall Act is mentioned and explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradereddy (talk • contribs) 19:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you proposing to add it in? Dovid (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Naming of the series of articles on the Glass-Steagall legislation

Dovid (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC) This section is transcluded from Talk:Glass–Steagall_Legislation/Series_name. If you wish to comment on this section, please do your edits there.

Transcluded discussion

This article is part of a series on the Glass-Steagall Legislation. The context of the series of articles is not the Glass-Steagall Act (i.e., the full Banking Act of 1933). Instead, it focuses on the most well-known portions of the Act, which served to split the financial industry into two worlds, deposits ("banks") and investment.

The series includes:

Originally, these appeared in a single article. The article was very long -- I think it printed at about 70 pages -- and I split it up. To help make the articles easy to find and stylistically hang together, I chose a naming scheme that puts Glass-Steagall at the beginning, followed by a colon and the more specific scope of the individual article. This allowed the main article to become much shorter, when specific areas of it were broken out into separate articles, and only a summary left in the main article.

At the same time, thee naming makes the group of articles easy to spot together in the search box, and easy to differentiate there and in the body of text of the main article, since they are short (after the colon) and the reader's eye easily skips over the common prefix. The shortness also meets WP:CRITERIA's conciseness rule. The consistency in naming also matches WP:CRITERIA's consistency rule.

(The last article in the series is intended to pull several more sections out of the main article. They are the ones that focus outside the US. The original author of the material has agreed to try to help out here, since it is complex and beyond my subject knowledge.)

However, some editors, I'm sure with the best intentions, saw the article names and thought they needed changing, perhaps to be more prose-like. We thus got:

  • Legislation, limits and loopholes related to the Glass–Steagall Act
  • The decline of the Glass–Steagall Act
  • Decline of the Glass–Steagall Act
  • The decline of the Glass–Steagall Act
  • The aftermath of the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act

There are several problems with this approach.

  1. The titles of the new names all incorrectly refer to the articles as Glass-Steagall Act. In fact, none of them has to do with the act as a whole, they are al about the four famous sections and activity following their passage or repeal. The rest of the Act is unrelated!
  2. It makes the individual articles difficult to find (a search will probably land on the main article, but the coverage there of the subarticles is somewhat buried in the still very long article)
  3. The names are inconsistent with each other
  4. Some of the names are very long, which is not in keeping with article naming guidance
  5. It is inconsistent with the main article usage

I have therefore reverted two of the articles to their earlier, established names. I could not revert one of the others, due to multiple previous moves, and will be asking for administrator assistance in this.

I ask that no further name changes (moves) be made without prior discussion. Dovid (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is "Legislation" capitalised? It is not part of the name or a proper noun, right?–Totie (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

10/22/13 edit

To complete the reorganization of the article that Dovid began, I’ve created a sub-article for post-financial crisis Glass-Steagall issues. I also added summaries of the contents of this sub-article and the preceding sub-article on the aftermath of Glass-Steagall “repeal.”

With the article reorganized to reference sub-articles, the summary descriptions of those sub-articles need to be consistent with the contents of the sub-articles. I have corrected the summaries where they were inconsistent with the sub-articles. The only significant inconsistencies came from the “Conference of State Bank Supervisors” materials in old footnote 20. That summary description of the 1932 and 1933 Glass-Steagall Acts (which lists Wikepedia and a 1998 NYT article as its “sources”) was used to describe the 1933 Banking Act (which has its own separate article) and to state incorrectly that Glass-Steagall permitted banks to retain affiliates that earned no more than 10% of their revenue from securities activities. The first point is inconsistent with the scope of the article (which deals with the four “Glass-Steagall” sections of the 1933 Banking Act). The second point is inconsistent with the articles on the legislative history of, the “limits and loopholes” in, and the “decline” of Glass-Steagall.

The error in suggesting the words of Section 20 permitted banks to own securities affiliates (derived from a Charles Geisst quote in the 1998 NYT article) is also contained in footnote 19 to Chapter 11 of Geisst’s Wall Street: A History. Presumably, in a short hand way Geisst was referring to the “engaged principally” language in Section 20, which the Federal Reserve Board used to create a 10% revenue limit in 1989 after the Proxmire letter described in the article on Glass-Steagall’s “decline.” As explained in that article, however, earlier the FRB imposed a 5% limit under Section 20 and, after increasing that limit to 10%, it later increased it to 25%. If someone believes it is necessary to reference Geisst’s interpretation of Section 20 as containing a 10% limit, that should go in the article on “legislation, limit and loopholes” (which would then require an explanation of the mistake as with the section on the New Deal and Glass-Steagall in the 1933 Banking Act article).

Now that the article has been reduced in size through sub-articles I removed the “too long” label. I’ll let Dovid know about my change. I only noticed now that he asked no further changes be made without discussing it. I hope my change is o.k. EAFAAT (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In creating your new articles, you seemed to arbitrarily delete sourced material that appeared in the original. Could you explain your criteria in doing this? 99.126.45.80 (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

21st Century Glass-Steagall Act

There should be a subsection covering the steps that have been taken to reinstate these provisions. One such effort is the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act which is not even mentioned in this article (or pretty much anywhere else on Wikipedia). - SweetNightmares 15:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a "majority of Democrats"

One democrat, Fritz Hollings, SC) voted for repeal of Glass-Steagal; not "a majority" Here's a link if anyone can do citations, I don't know how: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/106-1999/s105 65.27.230.140 (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Glass–Steagall legislation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glass–Steagall_legislation/Archive_1&oldid=1186783072"