June 3, 2010 Reading Time: < 1 minute

“In two weeks, I am supposed to speak on a panel entitled “Financial Re-regulation.” My question is, what re-regulation? To me, re-regulation means you would reverse some step that you took toward deregulation. But the new financial reform bill does not reverse any of those steps, as far as I know.

For example, the new bill does not repeal Gramm-Leach-Bliley, a 1989 law that ratified the de facto breakdown of the separation between commercial banking and investment banking, which is often blamed for the crisis. You would think that for symbolic reasons, if nothing else, you would repeal that law and go back to Glass-Steagall. Of course, I do not think there is much connection between GLB and the crisis, so I am not advocating repeal. I am just pointing out an inconsistency between one narrative of the financial crisis (it was caused by GLB) and the actual response.” Read more.

 What Financial Re-Regulation?
Arnold Kling 
EconLog, May 30, 2010.
Via the Library of Economics and Liberty.
 
Image by Francesco Marino / FreeDigitalPhotos.net.

Tom Duncan

Get notified of new articles from Tom Duncan and AIER.