OK, so I could be wrong about Canada and Glass-Steagal. I've read way too many articles over the last several years.GannonFan wrote:Huh? Canda doesn't have a wall between investment banking and lending - they don't have anything resembling Glass-Steagall. Heck, one of the reasons for the repeal of Glass-Steagall was that American banks couldn't compete on the international market against other banks, like Canadian banks, that didn't have the same restrictions. The $5B that was spent on repealing it was to convince people it wasn't needed. The amount of money spent on lobbying in no way indicates the correctness or the suitability of whatever is being lobbied for or against - that's just crazy. The banking system in Canada survived better than the US system because it was more conservative (not politically speaking) in its risk taking whereas American banks put a lot of their capital reserves in risky ventures. Canada also doesn't allow deductions for mortgage interest and banks tend to hold onto mortgages they create so that's a pretty big difference too. But there is no equivalent of Glass-Steagall in Canada - that's an important detail.kalm wrote:Again, I agree that GS wouldn't solve all the problems and I agree that regs are only as good as enforcement - look at Sarbannes-Oxley. I obviously agree that there are additional fundamental problems that need to be addressed. Now, ask yourself this question: if we have some regs in place and they are not being enforced, why? And if GS wasn't successful, why was $5 billion spent in lobbying to repeal it? And what has happened to the banking system in countries like Canada where the wall between investment banking and lending remain intact?
(sent from my wife's hot pink iPhone using my big fat fingers)
But I'm guessing that the canadian system hasn't suffered as much do to a lack of regulation.











