>>> "Carl Remick" <carlremick at hotmail.com> 11/08/99 09:41AM >>>
>I think Doug is
>almost certainly right that a properly regulated, closely controlled
>central bank is preferable to a fragmented, localized system. I also know,
>however, that Glass Steagall arose out of precisely the kind of popular
>enthusiasm for regulation and control -- and popular disgust with Wall
>Street and Citibank in particular -- that Doug seeks to encourage in his
>own writing. Maybe it was ill-crafted and even wrong-headed, but it still
>marked a high tide of leftist sentiment in this country, and even if the
>law's provisions cannot be defended, its intentions deserve to be.
>Instead what we get is an endless slamming of the accomplishments of the
>Thirties as backwards "depression era" thinking and a president and a
>congress who have acceded to industry's every wish -- doing so in the name
>of the almighty common people, united in their quest for higher returns.
>Feeble and fucked-up as the various regulations, controls, and welfare
>state implements that were passed in the Thirties and Sixties no doubt are,
>I would rather not celebrate their repeal until our team is the one doing
>the repealing, until they can be replaced with improvements like the ones
>that Doug specifies. It seems that the way things stand now, the financial
>industry has won a great historical victory, and on its own terms. It's not
>our doubts about Glass Steagall that prevailed but theirs. I guess my point
>(nostalgic and culturist as it is) is this: All the particulars of the law
>aside, the repeal of G-S represents an ideological ass-kicking for the left
>of historic proportions. Am I wrong?
No, Tom. You are right on the money, so to speak. This is the most accurate assessment to be posted here of what GS's repeal means.