"The Congress has freed financial institutions to follow their markets and has provided the regulators with the ability to let them do so, while still requiring prudential supervision focused primarily on ensuring the safety and soundness of insured depository institutions." You'll note the Quote says "Congress", not the Fed. The Congress is clearly the Horse and the Fed is clearly the cart. That's the point I was entirely too subtly making. Both Rubin and Greenspan were on board with G-L-B. The speech was in 2002, 5 years before the shit started hitting the fan. These folks, Gramm, Leach, Bliley, Rubin, Greenspan and the the other Republicans pushing for G-L-B never foresaw the disaster headed for the financial industry. But plenty in Congress did. They said on the floor of the Senate exactly what would happen if G-L-B passed. Their protests were in vain against an onslaught of Republican enthusiasm for loosing the reins of controls on banks. And by god everything the Democrats said would happen if G-L-B passed did happen, exactly as they predicted. Again, Congress is the Horse, the Fed is just the cart. Clinton signed the Act in the waning hours of his presidency and we were off to the races. (The bill had been cut off at the knees numerous times before, but this time, in a "clever" maneuver, it was attached to a must pass omnibus spending bill.)
Yeah, and he is “an ideal man” in Rands own words. I more or less lost any interest in her shit after that book. I do want a recipe. As for Zombie Economics, I read it too and felt it was a little to light on analysis, but otherwise OK. On topic. Realistically, every self-professed "libertarian" is very happy to reap the benefits that are provided to him by the state (it's rare to meet one that is in the income bracket where he's a net payer). I am also pretty sure none of them refuse to accept Medicare when they reach the right age. So that more or less takes care of the whole "Buffet is a hypocrite" chat. PS. Yes, the modern American concept of libertarian has very little to do with the proper free market thinking, just like todays Republican Party has little to do with the original ideas. Blame the shift in the "Overtons Window".
You failed. Reread what I previously quoted specifically . "However circuitous the route the actions by the Federal Reserve and the Comptroller of the Currency helped reduce the final restrictions, ........." Also a snippet from Wikipedia: "At the time of the repeal, most commentators believed it would be harmless. Because the Federal Reserve's interpretations of the act had already weakened restrictions previously in place, commentators did not find much significance in the repeal, especially of sections 20 and 32.[14] Instead, the five year anniversary of its repeal was marked by numerous sources explaining that the GLBA had not significantly changed the market structure of the banking and securities industries. More significant changes had occurred during the 1990s when commercial banking firms had gained a significant role in securities markets through "Section 20 affiliates".
1) Realistically you don't have a clue, neither do I or anyone else for that matter, what someone else pays in taxes. 2) Because they are not given a choice. The state has a monopoly in building in roads, except in rare cases, for example. Go down the list from there.
Mary Virginia McKenzie's "Milk Punch": (makes 1 quart) 1/3 cup brandy 2/3 cup bourbon 1 teas. freshly grated nutmeg 1 Tbs. vanilla 2 cups half and half simple syrup to make one quart, ~ 1 cup (simple syrup is one part sugar dissolved in 2 parts water) Chill all ingredients before mixing. Can be served over ice or not as the mood strikes you. Best poured from a chilled silver pitcher from before the "wah" (The civil wah of course, what evah wah is there?) For any respectable gathering a 4-fold multiplication of the recipe will be required.
I don't know how many times I have to point this out to you before it sinks in, but this will be my last attempt. The Fed did not weaken restrictions until Congress acted. Citi, i believe it was, you can look it up, had bought Travelers which was illegal under then existing regulations. The Fed gave them some time to divest or otherwise resolve the issue. This threw Gramm and his boys into overdrive. Now, was Greenspan a horrible Fed Chair?, yes he was. If you had to lay fault for the the financial crisis on any one person, any one thing, other than human greed, you would have to lay it on Greenspan. He was the one person who could have intervened to prevent a full blown crisis. He steadfastly refused to because he believed in free markets in the laissez faire sense, and so the "invisible hand" would solve the problem harmlessly if only everything was left up to the market and free enterprise.
I will believe the Fed's own words. Not yours thank you very much. As for Greenspan he was a free market believer right up his appointment to The Fed. The Fed by its very nature and design is an interventionist. Actually make that, Greenspan was never a free market believer. He just talked a good game.