Then you know nothing of Finance, Economics or how Sector Regulation works - the full impact of regulatory measures on those things takes years or even decades to unfold: we wouldn’t have had 5 decades of Neoliberalism if the full effects of unlimited deregulation were manifested immediately after a regulation is removed.
I was in the Finance Industry when the 2008 Crash happenned and most of what went wrong then would not have been possible if the Glass-Steagal act was still in place, so much so that after the Crash a weakened version of that act was put back in place, only to be thrown out again by Trump during his first presidency.
Clinton knew what the Act was for (plenty of Economists very publicly explained it back then) and why it had been put in place and he repealed it anyways because the Finance Industry could make more profits without that regulation (which they did, for a time, until the Crash, hence the boom-related suplus you loudly celebrated), all of which is very much the situation you described of, once knowing the long term harmful effects of something (specifically in this case, of removing certain regulations), doing it anyway for the short term benefits (the tobbaco industry got profits in their case, Clinton fueled a bubble and that yielded those celebrated Clinton surpluses, plus he personally got lots of money from the Finance Industry after he retired from the presidency).
His responsability is undisputable in Finance circles and all that’s in dispute is how much of the total is his and if he was either reckless (“Conditions have changed so this time it’s not going to happen”), incompetent (i.e. literally did not informed himself about the purpose of the Act he was repealing) or machiavelic (“My friends in the Finance Industry will be very thankful if I remove these costly regulations and if something happens it will be well after I’m POTUS and somebody else will get the blame”) in repealing Glass-Steagal.
Ah yes the “all the secret experts agree with me” argument, and “if you don’t, you have no idea”. Disregarding that a decade passed where two administrations could have done something about it, and didn’t. Let’s blame the Wright borders for Boeing’s fuckups while we’re at it. After all, if they hadn’t invented the airplane, those accidents wouldn’t have been possible.
If my explanation so far on how the Glass-Steagal forced separation of Retail banking from speculative investing and in doing so protected retail depositors’ money from the bank’s speculative investments blowing up, and the nonexistence of said protections was exactly why the 2008 Crash was so bad and had such widespread effects hence why we can directly trace most of the problems of that Crash to the repealing of said act, then me talking to you is a real life illustration of the pearls to pigs saying.
Your ignorance is 100% willful and there is no point in feeding such trolls.
You don’t even get my point. The inexistece of those protections in 2008 is not Clinton’s fault, unless he created a constitutional ammendment to forbid them or something irreversible. Bush was president for 7 years at that point, and as they say “the buck stops here”. He had 7 years to bring them back and he didn’t. Might as well blame Washington for creating the country.
Then you know nothing of Finance, Economics or how Sector Regulation works - the full impact of regulatory measures on those things takes years or even decades to unfold: we wouldn’t have had 5 decades of Neoliberalism if the full effects of unlimited deregulation were manifested immediately after a regulation is removed.
I was in the Finance Industry when the 2008 Crash happenned and most of what went wrong then would not have been possible if the Glass-Steagal act was still in place, so much so that after the Crash a weakened version of that act was put back in place, only to be thrown out again by Trump during his first presidency.
Clinton knew what the Act was for (plenty of Economists very publicly explained it back then) and why it had been put in place and he repealed it anyways because the Finance Industry could make more profits without that regulation (which they did, for a time, until the Crash, hence the boom-related suplus you loudly celebrated), all of which is very much the situation you described of, once knowing the long term harmful effects of something (specifically in this case, of removing certain regulations), doing it anyway for the short term benefits (the tobbaco industry got profits in their case, Clinton fueled a bubble and that yielded those celebrated Clinton surpluses, plus he personally got lots of money from the Finance Industry after he retired from the presidency).
His responsability is undisputable in Finance circles and all that’s in dispute is how much of the total is his and if he was either reckless (“Conditions have changed so this time it’s not going to happen”), incompetent (i.e. literally did not informed himself about the purpose of the Act he was repealing) or machiavelic (“My friends in the Finance Industry will be very thankful if I remove these costly regulations and if something happens it will be well after I’m POTUS and somebody else will get the blame”) in repealing Glass-Steagal.
Ah yes the “all the secret experts agree with me” argument, and “if you don’t, you have no idea”. Disregarding that a decade passed where two administrations could have done something about it, and didn’t. Let’s blame the Wright borders for Boeing’s fuckups while we’re at it. After all, if they hadn’t invented the airplane, those accidents wouldn’t have been possible.
Ah, yes, the “I don’t trust experts” argument.
If my explanation so far on how the Glass-Steagal forced separation of Retail banking from speculative investing and in doing so protected retail depositors’ money from the bank’s speculative investments blowing up, and the nonexistence of said protections was exactly why the 2008 Crash was so bad and had such widespread effects hence why we can directly trace most of the problems of that Crash to the repealing of said act, then me talking to you is a real life illustration of the pearls to pigs saying.
Your ignorance is 100% willful and there is no point in feeding such trolls.
You don’t even get my point. The inexistece of those protections in 2008 is not Clinton’s fault, unless he created a constitutional ammendment to forbid them or something irreversible. Bush was president for 7 years at that point, and as they say “the buck stops here”. He had 7 years to bring them back and he didn’t. Might as well blame Washington for creating the country.