tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post9102583454281680319..comments2024-03-28T07:50:06.102-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Obama Open to Bank Fees for Risksmike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-720610164135436252009-07-23T15:11:39.973-04:002009-07-23T15:11:39.973-04:00What part of this and so many other things does Ob...What part of this and so many other things does Obama find hard to understand?mike normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-71262741662223216912009-07-23T14:00:15.823-04:002009-07-23T14:00:15.823-04:00Ahmen. Obama has it wrong. Federal depository inst...Ahmen. Obama has it wrong. Federal depository institutions need to be separate from investment banks and should not be allowed to speculate. Investment banks can take on all the risk they want as long as they don't cause systemic risk. (Which is why we need a systemic risk regulator.) There is another important reason to bring back Glass-Steagall: perhaps it would spur the return of boutique investment banks so critical to financing growth industries in America. When Glass-Steagall was abolished, the big commercial banks gobbled up the boutique i-banks (such as H&Q, Montgomery, and Robbie Stephens) and then proceeded to destroy them. These i-banks were crucial to the development of America's leadership in microelectronics, software, the internet and biotechnology. America won't spawn a vibrant new growth industry (think Green Tech) without the boutique i-banks. We need a return to Glass-Steagall. What part of this is so hard for Obama to understand?Pentagronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04291763653419917767noreply@blogger.com