president has said repeatedly that they re going to get rid of financial reform and they re going to unleash the banking sector in wall street in particular. so nobody should believe anything that they say they re going to do on behalf of consumers and vestors who are main street. that is .1. .2 is taking down glass stiegel had a an impact on super sizing the banks and the four biggest banks in 2008 were the result of merging and consolidating 44 banks from 1998 to 2008. they were super sized. they were highly leveraged. they became fragile and blew up. so bringing this back will not solve all problems. but bringing back the real glass stiegel act will ensure protected deposits from being used as leverage. you cannot use the ensured deposits and the original
glass stiegel that works well for goldman sachs because it could eliminate goldman sachs or diminish goldman sachs toughest competition from j.p. morgan chase, city bank and the other big banks because goldman sachs would make them divide their business up and it s a divided strategy if you re goldman sachs. so good news for goldman sachs, not good news for main street. richard? i m not sure donald trump knows what he means when he says a new glass stiegel. fit resembles what is in the war e envetter bill, it won t accomplish very much either in terms of shrinking the sizest financial institutions which i don t sthi a good thing or in terms of changing the activity that can be done with consumer departments. when it was eliminated in 1999, that didn t really change what banks could do either. i think taking a step back and saying what would reinstitute a glass stiegel actually do, it
would prevent banks being under common ownership with investment banks. another way to say it is that more rules to protect consumers deposits would be better for people that are not gamblers. that s exactly right. reinstituting glass stiegel doesn t change what banks can do with deposits that are insured by the fdic. secondly, what we ve learned from this administration a little over 100 days is that there is some challenges with being able to govern competently. and so even if he talks tough, we know that we should be watching what he does and any attempt to institute a 21st century glass stiegel wou be dead on arrival in a replican house. this administration and this
businesses. the end of glass stiegel which divided that up investment and commercial banking. that was ended under bill clinton, and they think we re going return to the same policies where goldman sachs big proponent. he brags about how he is a hillary guy, is what he would say, and the was he an obama guy? at goldman, when obama ran, he was the hillary person, gary cohen is under two as the obama guy but they all became obama guys as soon as he won and distanced themselves from john mccain. you think a capitalist program would support pro market but they believe that barack obama is a moderate. a term that the head of black rock used back in 2008 they d been burned so many times on this. you would think they d to slow. they think hillary is the
banks, he likes regulating big banks. that s where the money is. he can go to the banks for campaign contributions, and when the federal government is focused on seven institutions, it s easier to basically extort what it wants from them. that s why i think he doesn t want to break it up. if you break up the banks it be easier to regulate. neil: we could still have another like 2008? you never say never. you don t know what the next neil: supposed to make it harder. he is meeting with the sec heads, various financial agencies and saying, what can we do to foster i will say this. there were lots of regulations on the books before 2008. the other thing is that one of the reasons why we had a 2008, because you had bank access, like customer deposits that are insured, merged with risky assets. when we ended brant stiegel, these big banks were created. glass stiegel has not been reversed. you still have don t have that separation.