Summary: The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

628 Words2 Pages

Since 1933 there has been numerous proceedings of regulation of banks. Regulations as the Glass-Steagall Act, which is the separates of commercial and investment banking. FDIC insurance, which protects depositors from losing their money. Tougher SEC regulations that allow you to invest on Wall Street without being cheated. As a result, for almost 50 years, there was no banks that failed, no major crises and the economy recovered from the Great Depression. Several economists believed that trend would have continued if not for deregulation. Although, deregulation somewhat increases the economy, it also causes unsustainable bubbles, increase riskiness in banks, and if things turn for the worst (like 2008), the banks are bailed out, and we the …show more content…

And yes the economy did indeed increase, but to an unsustainable bubble that was soon to crash- ex. The Financial crisis. Not only did the banks fail because of deregulations, they were bailed out, and we the people are left in turmoil. Many economists still believe that if the Glass-Steagall act was not repealed, the Financial crisis would not have …show more content…

In today’s America, bankers are often seen as heartless, money hungry pigs, and media outlets portraying bankers putting hardworking people on the streets. Regulation like FDIC and Dodd- Frank increases financial security and helps restore our repetition. Cases like ERON and Long-Term Capital Management, where people lost their entire savings, would not happened. Regulation is not the enemy. Instead of having lobbying groups to deregulate, accountable banks should embrace such regulation designed not only to improve consumer confidence, but also to preserve the integrity of our overall financial

Open Document