Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

In Defense of Col. Allen West

Okay, Col. — now Congressman — Allen West was fuzzy on some details. All the better to fit in with many of his colleagues.

However, in focusing on Glass-Steagall’s repeal, West picked up on a crucial point.

For the half-century between the 1930s and the 1980s, Glass-Steagall was the legislative formality behind a bipartisan philosophy: that the workaday task of creating credit for households and businesses needed protection from the extremes — optimistic and pessimistic — of financial speculation.

Roughly, Congress put longer-term credit creation in one place (commercial banks) and shorter-term speculation in another place (investment banks).

Lawmakers knew that it was okay for the stock market to lose value suddenly, causing great losses — but that it was not okay for long-term lenders to stop lending to all long-term borrowers, no matter how good the borrowers’ credit. So, Congress tried to separate the two, in hopes that they didn’t interfere with each other too much. 

By the 1980s, Congress, along with everyone else, began to forget that the “real” economy needed some protection from financial fevers. Washington began to make credit creation — and thus the economy itself — more vulnerable to short-term highs and lows.

As regulators let old protections fall away, people began to get their credit not directly from banks who held long-term loans on their books, but indirectly from short-term speculators who used securities made up of long-term loans as fodder for short-term bets made with money borrowed overnight.

Over time, then, the business of long-term credit creation became much more susceptible to the type of panic that afflicts financial markets from time to time. The repeal of Glass-Steagall nearly twelve years ago wasn’t the beginning of this process, but close to the end.

Representative West would do a service to Congress and the country if he were to learn more about why we must go back to better insulating long-term credit creation from short-term speculation — in some ways, yes, going back to the philosophy that helped to create Glass-Steagall.

Part of the reason is to prevent bailouts. No matter what Congress says today, it will never stand by and let the economy’s store of credit evaporate because markets have gone too far on the way up and are over-correcting on the way down. 

By at least acknowledging this imperfect marker in history, Representative West is off to a relatively good start. 

— Nicole Gelinas is contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal and author of After the Fall

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   6

EXPAND  

   02/16/11 11:17

"Representative West would do a service to Congress and the country if he were to learn more about why we must go back to better insulating long-term credit creation from short-term speculation"

There are ways to do that without re-implementing GS. There's no reason why banks can't be banks for everyone and serve both common customers and investors. The ban on mixing the two was always illogical and farcical, like saying that since there are different standards and consequences for handling dry goods and fresh food, that a department store thus cannot sell widgets and open a cafeteria too. GS was an impediment to economic growth more than any kind of real safety lever.

By the way, fix your spell checker. GS, spelled out, is a forbidden word? Really?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/16/11 12:48

We need to be very careful about putting strictures on any industry (including financial services) that will serve to move that industry out of the country. That said, I would like to have something that will separate the “real economy” from “financial fevers,” although I am not sure it is possible without the law of intended consequences making it a not good thing. And, that said, I wonder if we would have had the mess we had if there had not been a push for everyone to own a home.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
SteveB
   02/16/11 13:01

Alternatively, Bush/Paulson & the Democratic congress could have let those that borrowed short and hot to lend long and cold pay the price of imprudence. The market itself, instead of new GS legislation, would discipline imprudent creditors/speculators while letting the adult creditors/speculators go about their business.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/16/11 14:43

The Glass Steagel Act - like all such legislation - was immoral, impractical, and unconstitutional. It's not the proper function of the Federal government to manage the economy - no matter what happens. Further, they rarely if ever get it right - see "the knowledge problem" and other insights of Mises, et al. Lastly, it violates the rights of contract and voluntary trade.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
SpotCash
   02/16/11 22:58

The problem with that analysis is that few, if any, other nations followed the US practice of separating investment and commercial banks. During the long period that the US labored under Glass Steagall the nations not having a similar regime did not suffer a meltdown.

The restrictions also were loose enough for US commercial banks (the protected class) to evade most of them with some legal maneuvering.Any system that crates incentives to spend large amounts to evade the system (lawyers are expensive) is inane. (see, US tax code before the changes of the Reagan administration>

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
SpotCash
   02/16/11 23:00

The problem with that analysis is that few, if any, other nations followed the US practice of separating investment and commercial banks. During the long period that the US labored under Glass S (I can't write the name of the Act because I get this error message{??} Your comment cannot be posted since it contains objectionable language (the "s" word) Please reword your comment.) the nations not having a similar regime did not suffer a meltdown.

The restrictions also were loose enough for US commercial banks (the protected class) to evade most of them with some legal maneuvering.Any system that crates incentives to spend large amounts to evade the system (lawyers are expensive) is inane. (see, US tax code before the changes of the Reagan administration>

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact