Episode 317 – The Truth About Glass-Steagall

05/27/201797 Comments

We all know the story by now: the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 led to the housing bubble, the subprime meltdown and the global financial crisis…right? What do we really know about Glass-Steagall and how do we know it? Today James peels the layers off another long-standing alt media myth and discovers a surprising and cautionary tale about how the banksters can manipulate us into doing our dirty work for them.

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).

SHOW NOTES

Glass-Steagall, The Complete Story…
Time Reference: 01:02
Signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
Time Reference: 01:50
2007: The subprime meltdown
Time Reference: 02:44
Cramer: Bernanke, Wake Up
Time Reference: 03:01
closing bell – bear sterns debacle 14 march 2008
Time Reference: 03:24
The Fall of Lehman Brothers
Time Reference: 04:24
Explaining Glass-Steagall
Time Reference: 05:22
Fall of the Republic
Time Reference: 06:22
Dodd-Frank, Glass Steagall & Wall Street
Time Reference: 07:18
Hartmann: Bring Back Glass-Steagall Act
Time Reference: 07:40
Episode 288 – Open Source Journalism
Time Reference: 08:03
Glass-Steagall Reintroduced (HR 790)
Time Reference: 10:14
H.R. 790: Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2017
Time Reference: 12:01
Interview 1276 – G. Edward Griffin Debunks the JFK/Fed Myth
Time Reference: 12:41
Carter Glass biography from the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
Time Reference: 19:16
Glass–Steagall Act of 1932
Time Reference: 20:24
Banking Act of 1933
Time Reference: 21:48
The Glass–Steagall provisions separating commercial and investment banking
Time Reference: 22:41
Tom Woods Show Ep. 638 Did Deregulation Cause the Financial Crisis?
Time Reference: 28:54
Is Barney Frank?
Time Reference: 35:56
Hidden in Plain Sight: What Really Caused the World’s Worst Financial Crisis and Why It Could Happen Again
Time Reference: 39:46
The Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking: The Glass-Steagall Act Revisited and Reconsidered
Time Reference: 49:52
Exploding the Glass-Steagall Myth
Time Reference: 50:51
Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking: The Morgans vs. The Rockefellers
Time Reference: 59:47
What Would Be Wrong with Trump Restoring Glass-Steagall?
Time Reference: 01:10:34
The Glass Steagall Act – The Useless Eaters USA
Time Reference: 01:17:52
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Filed in: Podcasts
Tagged with:

Comments (97)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Corbett says:

    Well speaking of getting the facts straight, I have no idea why I was calling it the “Public Banking Act of 1933” throughout this episode. It is actually the “Banking Act of 1933” and the link to the text of the act is in the show notes above.

    Looking forward to reading your responses to the “pause challenge!”

  2. dubrey says:

    Hello James. Maybe I’m learning something, finally. When the lady said the NEW Glass-SteaGall,
    the word NEW immediately caught my attention. Words on Trump’s approval appeared to emphasize NEW also.
    Maybe i’m learning, maybe just skeptical or both, I’ll figure that out. I just have a feeling NEW means rewritten,
    tilting in favor of the money changers,
    Thanks for the great report.
    Its very important for those who
    weren’t pinched too hard in 2008, to reflect on the past a bit. Those who had their lives shattered nearly a decade ago, are still living with it. Bob

    (I couldn’t wait to post, so I’ll finish the video now, Hate it when I do that, egg on my face too many times)(I haven’t gotten to the moral of the story yet, i’m only 10% in, Let’s see how it goes and how wrong I was)

  3. dubrey says:

    HA HA at 15% into the video! As usual, your always one step ahead of me James!
    I’ll write mine down here. 1933 about the time they stold the gold, hey that rhymes, they blamed the banks, for all the problems of the Great Depression, sounds familiar, so they passed a law to cut any notion of gambling with depositors money. Clinton era repealed it
    , the gambling frenzy started and turned out very bad, at taxpayer expense. Ruined many lives, some forever. So now, it appears, we have a new plan to solve all our problems. That sounds familiar too. That’s about it. (dammit,now you’re going to read yours, I did it again!)

  4. Pablo de Boer says:

    Will the stock markets plunge down heavily again as in 2008, because a new subprime crises is developing and as usual the lenders / BANKSTERS behave just like they always do and of course also your government and unfortunately also the sheeple people aka the obedient voting cattle

    U.S. Subprime Auto Loan Losses Reach Highest Level Since the Financial Crisis
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-10/u-s-subprime-auto-loan-losses-reach-highest-level-since-crisis

    Subprime auto loans are a reminder of the housing crisis
    http://www.businessinsider.com/subprime-auto-loans-are-a-reminder-of-the-housing-crisis-2017-4

    Biggest Subprime Auto Lender Skipped Income Verification On 92% Of Auto Loans
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-22/santander-skipped-income-verification-92-auto-loans-abs-deals

    And subsequently who will pay as usual The Final Settlement of such crises????

    YES YOU, the 99.9 %, with the tax you pay to your government

    Theft By Deception: Deciphering The Federal Income Tax – A Film by Larken Rose
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMDVv_4Lt4o

    • Pablo de Boer says:

      Hola aloha señor James,

      Great independent + cherry picking journalism as usual of you on the Glass–Steagall Act. And oh yes you make economics funny and I think the banksters will not like that, because the banksters as Goldman Sachs’s Vampire Squid always tried to make from economics a very boring topic with the intention to distract the 99.9% to let them uniformed.

      On the subprime auto loans I was exaggerating, because the amount of car loans is in monetary value (total bucks) not as big as it was with the subprime mortgage crisis, thereore the subprime auto loans is not a big enough asset class to cause problems for the financial system as a whole.

      I only wanted to show that the banksters are still behaving as usual and each time when I am digital datamining on banksters and predatory companies the same mobster of merchandise names always arises and whom also are mentioned in yours señor James Report podcasts and articles on the banksters and other financial parasites. And this also applies to the auto loan lenders, here is a little list with names of auto loan lenders:

      Chase Auto Direct: Car buying simplified
      Find and finance your car with Chase
      https://www.chase.com/personal/auto-loans-w1
      Owned by JPMorgan Chase & Co

      Auto Loans & Car Financing from Bank of America
      https://www.bankofamerica.com/auto-loans/
      Made by Bank of America

      Santander Consumer USA
      https://dealer.santanderconsumerusa.com/
      Santander Consumer USA (“Santander”)is an affiliate of Banco Santander and who skipped income verification on 92% of auto loans.

      And in 2010 Santander Consumer USA has reached an agreement with Citi (Other Bankster clan) to purchase $3.2 billion of CitiFinancial Auto’s auto loan portfolio. In addition, Santander and Citi have entered into an agreement under which Santander will service a portfolio of approximately $7.2 billion of auto loans that will be retained by Citi.
      http://citigroup.com/citi/press/2010/100624b.htm

      AmeriCredit
      https://dealers.americredit.com/
      AmeriCredit Corp. was purchased by General Motors Company in October 2010 and renamed General Motors Financial Company, Inc. (GM Financial). The company is the captive finance company of and a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.

      Wells Fargo Dealer Services
      https://www.wellsfargodealerservices.com/
      Wells Fargo Dealer Services, a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is one of the nation’s leading auto lenders, serving over four million auto finance customers.

      ALL these merchants of Debt & Distortion are also mentioned in the Bailout Recipients list, because these money mobsters received billions of Dollars, which was authorized by Congress in October 2008 via the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.
      https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

      Thus banksters who needed not so long ago billions of dollars as help to survive and this financial help was paid with dollars from taxpayers, are lending now billions of dollars to the same taxpayers who want subprime auto loans. ai ai ai caramba que pasa en los Estados Unidos…

      Only Banco Santander is not directly mentioned on this Bailout Recipient List, because they are a “Spanish / European” bank and received the governmental financial support in Europe. But indirectly Banking Santander received a big amount of C-notes (slang for $100 bill) payed by US taxpayers, because AIG is mentioned on the bailout-list and

      Who got AIG’s bailout billions?
      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-aig-idUSTRE52624P20090308

      The government’s affordable housing policy was one of the big reasons of this 2008 financial crash as you also quoted in your vid. The government housing policy is a typical socialist thought, but also been heavily adored and applied by the capitalist bankstas. And Friedrich August von Hayek warned us:

      Even the striving for equality by means of a directed economy can result only in an officially enforced inequality – an authoritarian determination of the status of each individual in the new hierarchical order

  5. PeaceFroggs says:

    I’ll admit that during the little exercise at the beginning of the pod-cast that I didn’t know much detail about the Glass-SteaGall Act, and yes I did believe the pundits on TV when they said the abolishment of the Glass-SteaGall Act was the reason for the 2008 housing crisis.

    That said, if true that the 2 sections that were repealed had nothing to do with the 2008 crisis, then Bill Clinton cannot be blamed for the crisis when those 2 sections were repealed in 1999….so maybe it was the “Right” that started to propagate the Glass-SteaGall/crisis fallacy in order to blame the “Left”?

    In other words, we could say that Bill Clinton attempted to incrementally deregulate the banks somewhat when those 2 sections of the Glass-SteaGall Act were repealed, and isn’t that what (Tom Woods Show Ep. 638, Time Reference:28:54) called for all along!!!

    This world is a paradox, everywhere we look, whether its in nature, biology, the stars above or in society, we’ll find both chaos and order. Organized chaos lives simultaneously, and as far as the banking sector is concerned it seems to be no different. (we need both chaos and order, or regulations and deregulation)

    If it’s true that the real culprit is “Government Housing Policy”, then deregulation might be the answer to avoid a repeat of the 2008 crisis.

    I’ll say this, if those 2 sections that were repealed aren’t to be blamed for the 2008 crisis, then what could it hurt if they were to be reinstated, meaning regulation wasn’t the problem.

    • dubrey says:

      I was going to bring up government intervention previously. Too many issues at once fouls the message.

      For any good progress we all have to get off this left, right- Democrat,Republican – right, wrong.
      gay,straight, etc, roller coaster that we are on. I have to spank myself too. When I heard of the new Glass-Steagall
      I thought, and had a knee jerk reaction yea! Why? That is a very large part of the problem. We feel that we need Big daddy government to give us the answers. Do “they have the solutions? Have they ever, had the working solutions in yours or mines lifetime? If not, then why does this nauseous persistence to have government solve our problems, continue? When you find out that your government is overrun(controlled) by special interests that have an agenda that is contrary to good solutions the majority of the people want. What is next?

      Looking to government for the answers doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. In fact when People do, it is just a confirmation of this:

      I know you(my government) are working against my best interests, nothing you have done in my lifetime has improved my life, or the life of my children and that seems to confirm what I see, to be true. I can’t seem to think for myself, so says my television, so I will continue to allow it to do my thinking for me, after all, it is easier, and I do like easy, easy must be my best path, because easy is my best friend, and it suites me just fine.
      I guess I have no choice but to hope that things will eventually get better. I gotta end this, the news is on, I almost started thinking….and that’s not EASY

      • dubrey says:

        What IS EASY to do as truth seekers and more so for patriotic American truth seekers.

        Pertinent to this discussion, here is an exercise on what we as truth seekers can do to neutralize one of the best tools the enemies of truth have. That tool is time.
        Time for good people to do nothing. Time to forget.

        Use the knowledge that the American people and the surviving servicemen, the families of the dead servicemen have not seen justice done to this day as a reason to take a look at the facts for yourself, to hear their story, then decide what you want to do about it.

        We are approaching the 50th Anniversary of (June 8Th 1967). A day that our great ally, an ally to whom United States president, Donald J. Trump, unceasingly praises and vows 100% undying political and financial support to, did something that should have, and would have, caused all Americans to question this loyalty had they been allowed the facts, the truth. These facts and the truth are available for those inquiring minds who seek the truth.

        https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=300_1405110280

        http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2014/10/day-israel-attacked-america-20141028144946266462.html

        I am doing something June 8 2017. There is still an effort to suppress the truth, 50 years on.
        Find out why. Today is a good time to do so., being Memorial Day Weekend Time to take a look.

        • PeaceFroggs says:

          Dubrey,

          I know, I’ve been at this truth seeking thing for years now. This type a fog of war isn’t new, Nations throughout history (time) have been attacking themselves (false flag) in order to place blame on their enemy(s), and garner the political support needed at home (Problem – Reaction – Solution) in order to go to war.

          All warfare is based on deception.
          –Sun Tzu (The Art of War, 5th century BC)

          ——————————————————–

          I don’t think Israel wanted to start a war with its ally America in 1967, so I’m not sure what the reasoning was for the Israelis to attack the USS Liberty on June 8th 1967.

          We do know however that the USS Liberty was an intelligence gathering ship, therefore maybe the Israeli’s needed it out of the way before they could take the Golan Heights? Which they did the very next day, on June 9th.

          Either way, I view the attack on the USS Liberty as a sort of false flag attack. There is no way that the US would ever declare war on Israel, and Israel knows this.

    • Pablo de Boer says:

      Hola aloha PeaceFroggs,

      You comment:

      “That said, if true that the 2 sections that were repealed had nothing to do with the 2008 crisis, then Bill Clinton cannot be blamed for the crisis when those 2 sections were repealed in 1999….so maybe it was the “Right” that started to propagate the Glass-SteaGall/crisis fallacy in order to blame the “Left”?”

      Did you know, that Obama who has a democratic bromance with Bill “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” Clinton, the same Obomba helped the usual financial muggers with financial support after the 2008 financial crash just like the Bush-mob???

      In mid-December of 2008, the Bush administration stepped in to lend General Motors and Chrysler billions to prevent impending bankruptcy. Subsequently, the Obama administration kept the two companies afloat as they filed for bankruptcy protection. See below for details on outstanding loans to each company.

      Automotive Industry Financing Program (Part of the the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act from 2008)
      https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/programs/3-automotive-industry-financing-program

      The Hegelian left right paradigm is a tactic used by the true puppet masters and who are in fully control of their puppets in The Democratic Party and The Republican Party.

      Saludos,

      Pablo de Boer

      • PeaceFroggs says:

        Hola Pablo,

        Yes, I am well aware of the left-right paradigm, however it’s much more sophisticated than that. There’s a hidden hand at play here, that isn’t so hidden anymore, if you know where to look.

        For instance, Miss Lewinsky (Jewish) was a gullible naive young woman that was used by the Neocons in order to impeach Bill Clinton. At the time she didn’t know she was being manipulated, but they used her to try and remove him from office.

        Why was Bill Clinton such a threat, and to whom?

        Well, remember when President Clinton, Yitzhak Rabin, and Yasir Arafat signed the Oslo Accord on September 13, 1993? And on November 4th 1995, Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, a right-wing Jewish extremist who opposed the signing of the Oslo Accords?

        Notice a pattern here? Whoever tries to bring about peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis gets either assassinated or gets taken out politically.

        The Obama Bibi rift wasn’t theater. Most American Politicians know who is trying to manipulate them, this isn’t difficult to figure out anymore. Hillary Clinton refers to them as the “Vast right-wing conspiracy”, basically the same people that are currently behind Trump today and the same people that helped derail her campaign, much like Wikileaks Julian Assange, (ever notice he never talks about 9/11), and the jury is still out on Comey, we’ll have to wait and see about him.

        • Pablo de Boer says:

          Hola aloha PeaceFroggs,

          Muchas gracias for sharing your view on politicians. For me personally Democrats and Republicans are 2 sides of the sane coin (Deep state) and that’s why they both obediently serve their puppet masters in Swamp-city DC and their voting cattle does the same, aware or unaware.

          Here in Holland you have a lot of choice if you want to vote, because they have here more than 2 parties, but they all serve the Dutch Dictatorship / the Royal Muggers. And just like in the US of A all the Dutch politicians are professional liars and narcissistic.

          I don’t like to be fooled and that’s why I voted for the last time a very long time ago just like señor Carlin and just like him, I consider the voting cattle also responsible for the fact, that the Deep State are still in power and control. That’s why I never support any politician anymore and my person will not be anymore a member of the voting cattle.

          George Carlin Doesn’t vote
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

          Saludos y abrazos,

          Pablo de Boer

          • PeaceFroggs says:

            Here in Canada, you have a few more choices than in the US as well. On the left we have 3 political parties (Liberals, NDP and the Green’s), and on the right we have the Conservatives.

            In the grand scheme of things, internationally speaking, all levels of government serve the Queen of England indirectly or her Corporations, but at the National, Provincial and Municipal levels they ultimately serve the people. The laws that are passed or repealed affect us (the people) directly, so we are self governed in that sense.

            Are Politicians narcissistic? Of course they are, they need to be, it’s just the nature of the game.

            Are all Politicians liars? If the lie is too apparent, like Obamacare’s “you can keep your doctor” rhetoric, then the politicians are usually held accountable. Nixon and George Bush also come to mind. People really do have the power, and if it gets really bad, then we usually take to the streets, like during the Vietnam war and draft.

            So when it comes to voting I disagree with Carlin, I believe we have to stay constantly vigilant and engaged in the political process. Voting is just a small part of the ongoing political process. In other words “voting” isn’t the be-all and end-all.

            In fact, I’d argue that what we are doing right now is probably one of the most important parts of the political process, which is dialogue.

          • PeaceFroggs says:

            I’m curious Pablo,

            1- Who are “the puppet masters in Swamp-city DC” exactly?

            2- What are/is the ultimate goal of “the puppet masters”?

            • Pablo de Boer says:

              Hola aloha PeaceFroggs,

              The puppet masters from Swamp City DC were or are families as The Rotschild, John Pierpont “J. P.” Morgan & Co, The Warburgs (German and American). One of them was Felix Warburg and he was married with Frieda Schiff, daughter of Jacob H. Schiff, a banker who grew up in Frankfurt. Jacob H. Schiff financed parts of the American rail system through his investment bank Kuhn Loeb. Jacob H. Schiff also financed with his bank the Bolshevik revolution and that’s why he had a masonic bromance with Leon Trotsky.

              The Sackler family is one of the new mobster families of Big Pharma and they sell one of the most addictive and mortal drugs called Oxycontin and with governmental approval from Swamp City DC. And Bill and Melinda Gates are also new members of the American kakistocracy.

              Or the du Pont family who own E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, commonly referred to as DuPont, is an American conglomerate. Dear PeaceFrogg investigate self their dark family history… But I will help you a little bit.
              Multimillionaire du Pont family heir was spared jail for raping his three-year-old daughter because judge decided he would ‘not fare well’ behind bars . (Just like also happened with Jeff Epstein, who is a pedophile and big amigos with Bill Clinton and Donald Trump)

              You also have other global puppet masters as the self-appointed royal inbreeders from Great Britain and who are the true owners of Canada, the Windsor Family as you also self-mentioned dear PeaceFrogg. And the Dutch self-appointed royal inbreeders, the van Oranje / Orange Family are also a member of the Global elite. These both inbreeding families are physically, mentally and morally deteriorated.

              Both families also own big oil Companies as British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell. In America there are also families whom also had and have a big involvement in the oil Business and in Swamp City DC. On is the Bush-clan and the name of another family is…….. The Rockefeller family. Señor James made an excellent documentary about these oiligarchs and how they conquered the world and misbehave(d) just like the Spanish conquistadors had been misbehaving in Central and South America (and still do with their banks as Banco Santander and…. investigate self dear PeaceFrogg, so you will become independent and don’t have to ask me for answers 🙂 ).

              How Big Oil Conquered the World
              https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-310-rise-of-the-oiligarchs/

              The Rockefeller family also transformed healthcare and pharmacy in a immoral and deathly industry and with approval of the US government in Swamp City DC. Just like Obomba also last 8 years did with healthcare and at the same time Barack also was bombing civilians with drones and other deathly munition for 8 years, because this mass-murder was 2 times elected by the voting catlle, but first pre-selected by his puppet masters.

              The Sackler Family which I already mentioned do also medicine business with the same immoral attitude and they also are supported by their political puppets in Swamp City DC. Señor James made another excellent documentary about the Rockefeller family and their involvement in Big Pharma.

              Rockefeller Medicine (video)
              https://www.corbettreport.com/?s=Rockefeller+medicine

              Or this Canadian MSM article about Oxicontin

              OxyContin and other opioids tied to 1 in 8 deaths in young adults, Ontario study shows
              http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/oxycontin-and-other-opioids-tied-to-1-in-8-deaths-in-young-adults-ontario-study-shows-1.2696995

              And all these deaths resulted in

              The OxyContin Clan: The $14 Billion Newcomer to Forbes 2015 List of Richest U.S. Families
              https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexmorrell/2015/07/01/the-oxycontin-clan-the-14-billion-newcomer-to-forbes-2015-list-of-richest-u-s-families/#75e02c5e75e0

              Just like the depraved Zbigniew Brzezinski one of the many morally corrupted members of the Rockefeller clan died this year and his name is David Rockerfeller. And who produced and edited The Unauthorized Biography of David Rockefeller?????? Si si si es señor James de nuevo.

              The Unauthorized Biography of David Rockefeller
              https://www.corbettreport.com/the-unauthorized-biography-of-david-rockefeller/

              And their goal is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

              The NWO.

              And if you want to be more and well informed on this NWO topic….
              Señor James has an internet page full with info on the NWO..
              And that is the only and one reason, creating the NWO, that I will never have a dialogue with the puppet masters from Swamp City DC and their political gasbags and also not on local level.

              Saludos y abrazos,

              Pablo the Boer

              • PeaceFroggs says:

                Thanks for the reply Pablo, but I fail to see how these people hold any power over us without our consent.

                I mean, just because pot is legal doesn’t mean I should smoke it right, same applies to Oxycontin, Oil or owning a car for that matter.

                Furthermore, nothing is stopping me from becoming my own boss, and becoming financially independent. Nothing is stopping me from buying stocks in Dupont, British Petroleum or Royal Dutch Shell either.

                You said you live in Holland, well isn’t Holland a socialist country with one of the highest standard of living in the world?

                I’m assuming you’re financially independent or retired given the amount of time you spend here at the Corbett report posting, reading and replying, so if you don’t mind me asking, do you have a problem with paying property tax, gas tax and income tax to you local and Federal Governments?

            • Pablo de Boer says:

              Buenos dias PeaceFroggs,

              Holland isn’t a socialist society, but a royal dictatorship ruled by self-appointed royal inbreeders. That is the only and true reason why Holland is written in official papers and documents as Koninkrijk der Nederlanden = Kingdom of the Netherlands. Google self on Dutch Passport and click on images. And since the inception of the EU ( invented by the elite) on the front cover of all Dutch Passport also the words Europese Unie = European Union are written above Koninkrijk der Nederlanden. And that (EU) is a preparatory action for the creation and completion of the NWO.

              The biggest party now in the Dutch government is the VVD and that is a conservative party just like the Republicans from the US of A and the Tories in the Kingdom of England. Last March there were elections in Holland and the VVD party was again the biggest party. But there is still not a new government, because of the Dutch cabinet formation. The Dutch cabinet formation is a process of negotiating an agreement that will get majority support in parliament and results in the appointment of the council of ministers. The Dutch cabinet formations tend to be a time consuming process, and is for the most part not codified in the constitution.

              Sounds democratic ????????????
              But…..

              This theatrical and manipulated process occurs to give the Dutch voters the (false) feeling that their vote matters. Because the real rulers of the Kingdom of Holland are the appointed (not elected) members of De Raad van State (Nederland)/ The Council of State (Netherlands). The Council of State consists of members of the royal family and Crown-appointed members generally having political, commercial, diplomatic or military experience (All big amigas & amigos of the Dutch self-appointed royal inbreeders). The Council of State MUST be consulted by the (elected) cabinet on proposed legislation before a law is submitted to parliament. The Dutch Dictator (The inbred Queen or King) is president of the Council of State but (s)he seldom chairs meetings……… The Crown-appointed Vice-President of the Council of State chairs meetings in their absence. Under Dutch constitutional law, the Vice-President of the Council is acting head of state when there is no monarch such as if the royal family were to become extinct. It was founded in 1531.

              Thus dear PeaceFroggs since 1513 the Kingdom of Holland is being governed by the members of one inbreeded family. So I do not know who fooled and misinformed you with telling your person that the Kingdom of Holland is a socialist country. And the above information yourself can read on Wikipedia… And as señor James shared with us in his Glass-SteagallAct podcast, always verify self if something is realy true.

              I have to do now some other stuff and later I will respond your other assumptions and questions estimado PeaceFroggs . But before I leave, my person wants to share one musical political news with you. Because other inhabitant of the British Empire have a totally different view on politicians than you and their thoughts are the same as mine . Because the ‘Liar Liar’ song about Theresa May by Captain Ska soars to number 2 on iTunes Chart
              http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/liar-liar-captain-ska_uk_592c2152e4b0065b20b77e9b

              But that doesn’t mean that they and my person are right, because if I would think so, I would behave narcissistic and I hope you now are fully aware how I think about narcissistic persons….. Otherwise you always may ask me

              Saludos y abrazos,

              Pablo de Boer

            • Pablo de Boer says:

              Hola aloha PeaceFroggs,

              Como estas fellow señor James Report follower?

              Most of our fellow humans who are ill, get their medicines by an instruction written by a medical practitioner that authorizes a patient to be issued with a medicine or treatment. These people take drugs / medicines, because they want to be cured and that’s why they go to a doctor and the patient thinks that the doctors are experts. These sick patients who need help are being poisoned by authorized persons / doctors due to the doctor’s lack of knowledge, because they (doctors) are being (purposely) misinformed by Big Pharma on the side effects of most medicines or doctors are corrupt just like the narcissistic politicians. I myself think that most doctors want to cure their patients, but these doctors are being misled and misinformed by other humans, who behave the same as narcissistic politicians.

              I am a CAD designer, CAD is Computer Added Design, because I like this kind of work and I need money to survive in the concrete jungle. In my free time I like to dance and listen to music, inform myself, observe and interact with all my fellow humans , thus also with the voting cattle and their narcissistic political rulers. In my free time my person also helps addicted fellow humans with their detox from alcohol and drugs. Addiction is a mental and physical illness. When they are sober most times they behave as angels, but when their addiction get control over them, they are just as manipulative as narcissistic politicians. I’m not against the use of drugs and alcohol, because everybody must be free to do what she or he wants and nobody else has the right to tell others how to live. There still not exist medicines for this horrific disease, but with mentally and spiritual support you can help some of them and helping a fellow human getting a better life is for me the most wonderful event which can occur in my life. But I’m not a socialist, because that is a political philosophy. I have empathic feelings for the needy fellow humans and those feelings are generated natural in my whole body and mind. That’s the reason I help voluntarily and with all my energy my fellow humans whom need support.

              I have to control and revise now technical drawings with CAD and later I will answer your question on taxes. But you already asked me If I pay gas taxes and not so long ago I answered you the same question here on señor James internet-page……. Check and search self and don’t depend on others if you self can find the answer or solution, but that is only a suggestion from my side.

              And I have only one question for you estimado PeacFroggs, why do YOU need another person to rule over and govern your person?

              Saludos and C U later alligator,

              Pablo de Boer

              • mkey says:

                Dear Pablo, it’s Aided, not Added 😀

                What kind of CAD work do your perform? I’m in shipbuilding business, sadly we’re stuck in seventies CAD technologies thanks to (what else could it be) failed socialist policies lol

                Oh, how I wish we could allow natural progress to get ahead of ourselves and just be happy while doing a lot more with a lot less, but alas. This bullcrap seems to be braided deep into the DNA of masses. It certainly got the better of this ridiculous little society I’m on remote outskirts of.

              • PeaceFroggs says:

                Hey Pablo,

                You said: “So I do not know who fooled and misinformed you with telling your person that the Kingdom of Holland is a socialist country.”

                — Well, not sure I was fooled necessarily, because monarchy’s can also be socialist.

                Wikipedia tells us that Netherlands system of government is a “constitutional monarchy”, with a Monarch, Prime Minister and parliamentarians.

                so·cial·ism: is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. /definition

                So, Netherlands maybe a “constitutional monarchy” but it also has fairly extensive welfare system with programs such as social security etc.

                ======================================

                You also asked: “…why do YOU need another person to rule over and govern your person?”

                Well, I don’t equate socialism or the welfare system with having someone rule over me, because these are only social programs that we all pay into, and I view it as a sort of insurance in case I would so happen to need these services during my lifetime. I would argue that the bureaucracy may need improvement, but as a whole, here in Canada the system works rather well.

                Similarly, I do not equate government has ruling over me either, since “We” are the government, and no one is above the law, therefore since we are a nation of laws, we abide by the Constitution, and it is the Constitution and the Charter of Rights which protects our G-d given rights, or Human rights if you will.

                So I’m assuming since I’m Canadian you must have meant the Queen of England as ruler of my person?

                Well, I may be wrong, but I believe the Constitution supersedes the Crown in Canada, at least that is my understanding since 1982, when Pierre Elliott Trudeau patriated the Constitution.

                She’s purely ceremonial, and since I’m a French Canadian/Human being, I could care less really. Some days I which Canada was a Republic like France or the US, but at the end of the day, like I said, the Crown holds no power over me.

              • Pablo de Boer says:

                Hola aloha mkey

                We both have more in common than just our strive for freedom and a society without rulers :). And muchas gracias for correcting me on CAD.

                I work at an energy network company. They are responsible for the distribution of energy such as electricity, (bio)gas and heat. They don’t produce or trade energy. This is done by energy suppliers, buyers and traders.

                For the distribution of gas and electricity to consumers, businesses and institutions the company have a network / grid of pipes and cables and other technical equipment. These assets are being designed and registered in 2 different CAD systems. One is autocad, since this year we use version 2017, with special developed software called pronto. And we also have Smallworld and that is a GIS, Geographic Information System. GIS is a system designed to capture, store, revise, analyze, manage, and present spatial, geographic and grid/network data.

                GIS has its benefits, but it also abused by the governments because with GIS they also register our personal data like where we live and other personal information of us. Just like IBM did for the Nazi’s with the tabulation of punch cards based upon national census data. And with GIS you can store more data….

                And yes you are so right about the masses / the voting cattle, they are so badly brainwashed and as result of that, they are not aware of how they are being manipulated by the kakistocracy and their pundits. These kind of fellow humans make statements as, the government is corrupt, but we need a government… ai ai ai caramba….

                But estimado mkey, be happy that you are not a member of that obedient and ignorant flock.. And just like you wrote last here @ señor James webpage, it is better not to argue with them and you are right about this. That’s why I will follow your wise advise on this topic and not debate anymore with members of the voting cattle, because it is useless and also dumb of me.

                Saludos y abrazos,

                Pablo de Boer

              • mkey says:

                We’re using a program which was made in 70s last updated in 80es for basic 3D modeling. Its the basis for all 3D operation. It doesn’t have undo not scroll zoom, so you can immagine what we’re working here with.

                There are several other programs in use in the shipyard, Autocad among others, but the reason we’re stuck in the (technically speaking) ancient past is of political nature. The IT office which takes care of technical issue has been privatised and is charging the shipyard for its services. Handsomly. People who have interest in those transactions are holding natural progress back.

            • Pablo de Boer says:

              Hola aloha PeaceFroggs,

              You are right about that socialism and monarchy are exact the same, because both are a form of dictatorship. And as I already commented and also is mentioned in Wiki, the Dutch dictator is a monocrat, dictatorship or rule by a single person / family. And that’s why this absolute ruler MUST be consulted on proposed legislation before a law is submitted …. read my other comment. The Dutch autocrat is also the only person in Holland who may overrule judicial decisions.

              I’m just like you obligated to pay taxes and I do not agree with that, because the Dutch government just like the Canadian uses these taxes to kill and bomb civilians in other countries. They also fund with our taxes murderous institutions like NATO. That’s why I also do not vote, otherwise I will support these murderous actions. I oppose them in a nonviolent way.

              Also their (Deep state) whole historic role in the mayhem, exploitation and suffering of the countries in Asia, Australia, Middle East, Africa and the American continent as result of their treasure troves of fossil fuels and other natural resources deserves condemnation and NEVER my support. This burglarious behavior is driven due to their voraciousness of getting what they want. And when anything stands in their way, they instruct their military and political puppets to illegally bomb and kill the people who oppose them. This is a consistent and repeating pattern in Western history. Their hunger for power was and still is a recipe for hideous disaster as the present and the history have shown us. They are putting these humans beings in the same hell hole as the founding fathers of the US of A did with the Indians and African slaves. And the same murderous crimes have been committed against the Indigenous peoples in Canada. But you are proud to be a Canadian, so you are a nationalist socialist….

              For me it seems that comedians speak more truth than any of the politicians, that’s the reason I want to share with you this vid

              Doug Stanhope on nationalism
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKT4a-RMT5o

              I wish you all the best in your life dear PeaceFrogg and more luck than all the death people who are being killed by the Western allies with the support of their voting cattle.

              Saludos y abrazos

              Pablo de Boer

              • PeaceFroggs says:

                Hey Pablo,

                I didn’t say that socialism and monarchy were the same, what I said was Monarchy’s can also be socialist, just like dictatorships, Theocracy’s and even Republics can also be socialist.

                I’d even argue that the US of A, a Republic, is the biggest socialist country on earth. The US has the biggest military budget, bigger than the next 7 countries combined.

                Think about it, soldiers commit to enlist for a certain amount of years, most of them for low government pay, and in return they get benefits like health care and retirement pay. If that isn’t socialism then I don’t know what is.

                I guess Uncle Sam forgot to mention to the enlisted men and women that the military is a socialist construct hey Pablo.

                I understand you have a problem with Kings and Queens in general (so do I) but not enough to force you to move to another country.

                Like I said, here in Canada we have the ceremonial Queen, but she doesn’t control us. For example, when the US and Britain decided to go to war against Iraq in 2003, our Prime Minister voted against it. The Queen didn’t overrule and force Canada to join the coalition, she respected our collective choice, besides she couldn’t even if she wanted to because legally speaking Canada’s patriated its constitution in 1982.

                You think I’m a proud Canadian, and I am, but in reality, I consider myself a human being first and foremost. I am a human being that just so happened to be born in a country called Canada.

                Furthermore, a country isn’t a land mass surrounded by borders, a country is its constitution, and here in Canada our Constitution and Charter protect citizens human rights, whether your a female, black, gay …or whatever.

                We live in a world where societies or nations risk being attacked by invaders, invaders much like the empirical US of A, I believe it is just normal that people ban together, create societies in order to be able to defend themselves from outside forces. The human body does it against viruses, its called the immune system, same concept.

                We all die someday Pablo, if men don’t get us (wars), nature will. People die in wars, most however die of diseases, some die in car crashes, some even still die from wild animals, like shark attacks, snake bites etc…

                I guess for me, when a country decides to wage war illegally or does something immoral, then I believe it is our responsibility as citizens or just plain human beings to speak up, whether you voted or not.

                Voting is a choice, not voting is but another choice.

  6. dubrey says:

    Truth ,that’s tough one. The truth we had in 2008 isn’t the truth we have in 2017. How can that be? Isn’t the truth is this big block of Uranium, sustained through the ages because long life and its hard to split.?
    But,it does decay! Now what?

    Before I start. Anyone who has been at this truth seeking for any length of time ends up concluding thats it’s an evolutionary process. We believe today what we didn’t believe yesterday and so on.
    The only bright spot, the only positive factor I see is that the process is starting to coalesce and in many cases
    yesterdays points of view are tending to point in a particular direction. If we can get some reasonable control over our confirmation bias and political correctness, better yet, faster yet.

    For the past couple years I have been listening to an audio book, I have a hard head, thus the needed repetition,
    Called “The housing boom and bust” by Thomas Sowell. If I recall right, the books premise is that government regulation was the culprit, mentioned by, the Barney Frank portion of this video.
    Now here is where it gets nasty.
    For any real progress one has to evolve to a point that the tunnel vision disappears and one starts to see the
    greater picture, a viewpoint much closer to “the Truth” and this goes way back into the 19th century.
    We have to ask our selves the eternal question, Qui Bono, who benefits. Whether that is financially or
    more pertinent to our evolving quest for the truth, politically. The two sides theory in banking, in Politics and industry has to be examined. If it is found wanting, disposed of. Look over there, not over here, is always the policy
    whether is Glass- Steagall , politics or religion. I’ll cut it short. Who, is behind the control of our government to the point that it can barely tie its shoes? Who is financing the endless wars in the middle east, and for what purpose? Who is behind the diversification policy in Europe? That many now see, IS destroying their countries and have finally decided to fight back. Who even has this kind of money? Could it be the same guys that had the money here is the US circa 1900? Could it be the same guys that fund both sides of ALL wars? Who is behind this New World Order everybody’s talking about? “Well there’s two sides to every story!” Is there , really!
    Without ruffling too many feathers ask yourself these questions.
    Can I draw any conclusions From the “Evolution: of the Trump Administration? Who he has appointed to steer his
    ship, so to speak? (or vice-versa) When you saw Trump wearing a Yamika and kissing the wailing wall in Israel,
    did you get a bit suspicious as to who, is running the show in this world and where it is headed?

    Good video James.

    It IS all about rethinking what we think we know, isn’t it.

  7. m.clare says:

    Despite being the typical Canuck who is ashamedly and significantly better acquainted with ‘Merican “facts” than with Canadian, I will accept your challenge, cross the fine line that separates bravery from stupidity and admit I know absolutely nothing about Glass-Steagall.

    Very shortly, the ONLY thing I will know about Glass-Steagall will be what I pick up from Episode 317.

  8. normic says:

    Another great one James. I suppose the business of learning “truth” is the questioning of our suppositions over and over again. Constantly honing our internal map of the world to a finer and finer resolution and consistency. It is very easy to glob on to ideas that fit consistently into this map and miss those ideas which require revision of the map. We always long to have a finished map, a world view which we can lay down on the terrain which will fit no mater when or where we are. A guiding understanding which is clear and crystalline on all occasions. So we jump to conclusions based on ideas which fit our map. And that makes us very vulnerable to well crafted propaganda. Human nature I guess. We love to find ideas which fit the map and dislike finding ones which don’t or worse ones which partly fit. When this happens I always retreat to the sobering thought that the map can never be the reality. Just as a geological map can never be the path physically walked. And the internal map is really a process we will never finish.

  9. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Okay… I am at around the 15 minute mark of the video (Writing what I know about Glass-Steagle). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLxRUewl-F0&feature=youtu.be&t=15m53s

    Heck, I don’t know much about it, period. Only that it was some kind of banking or investment regulation. I even would end up misspelling Glass-Steagle, except it is written here. I have only vague cloudy ideas of hearing the term before mentioned by many people in regards the 2008 collapse. Even the Clinton era repeal is a nebulous memory to me.

    I do know though, that the 2008 collapse really beat me up.

    Recently, I looked up OTC Over The Counter Stocks (which is not a “centralized” exchange) and saw a blurb about the 2008 collapse, but it did not mention Glass-Steagle. https://www.corbettreport.com/what-are-you-going-to-be-when-you-grow-up/#comment-38612

    (An aside: I like that Corbett term “Congress Critters”.)

  10. ekawAediW says:

    The Glass Steagall Act was a reactionary bill passed under the Roosevelt administration (Teddy? Franklin? Not sure) whose stated purpose was to provide a security blanket against the economic conditions that led to the Great Depression. I believe it was drafted and enacted in the 1930’s by congressmen Glass and Steagall, who the bill is named after. I know nothing about either Glass or Steagall nor anything about their personal motivations for wanting this bill to exist.

    The GSA supposedly placed shackles on banks by restricting what they could do with their capital in one of two ways, depending on how they chose to classify themselves; either as investment banks or as commercial banks. Investment banks were allowed to use their capital to speculate on the open market and commercial banks, which handled and facilitated every day transactions and private savings accounts, could not speculate on the open market. The thought was that ordinary people’s savings would be sheltered from speculation and thus experience lower risk with these restrictions in place.

    During the GSA’s lifespan, the US economy saw a prolonged period of unparalleled prosperity, but as we know, correlation does not always imply causation. I am unsure how the GSA promoted a healthy economy or if it were a significant factor in any way.

    Glass Steagall met its demise under the Clinton administration in the 1990’s. Bill Clinton was and is a loyal agent of the Deep State, so everything he did and does must be evil… right?

    Welp, can’t say I didn’t try. Thanks or making me to this exercise though, James. I enjoy having my preconceived notions challenged.

  11. mkey says:

    GS is a law (is it a law?) which was introduced, I want to say during the 60es but I’m just guessing here, as a measure aimed to wrest some control on those pesky globalist bankers. It supposedly led to much prosperity, (for the US middle class anyway) until ole Bill brought it down and enabled what later became the dot com bubble, adding fuel to the fire for the later real estate bubble and whatever comes after the zombie economy of today gets a fresh thirst for braaaains.

    Either way, I’d say debt printing and especially fractional reserve lending i.e. uncontrolled debt/credit creation is what got us into this bind we’re in today, with about 3-5% of currency in circulation being cash, the remainder being credit.

  12. Regarding Peter Wallison’s book Hidden In Plain Sight, some factual errors have been identified in the Amazon comments section and elsewhere:

    A VERIFIED PURCHASER WHO READ IT: It’s the same stuff he’s written dozens of times before. Don’t waste your money.
    ByNYC Reader1on January 13, 2015
    Format: Hardcover|Verified Purchase
    How dumb does Wallison think we are? Answer: Very

    If you want to read what he has to say, read Wallison’s FCIC dissent, countless Wall Street Journal op-ed pieces or AEI blogs, or the litany of other books that hew to the AEI party line, which is affordable housing caused everything to go bad.

    He always says that about half of US mortgages were “subprime or of similar quality.” But he never attempt to reconcile that designation with actual loan performance. According to Mark Zandi’s numbers, Fannie & Freddie realized 14% of total housing losses, whereas Wall Street’s private securitizations represented the majority of the losses.

    http://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/the_nyt_spread_the_big_lie_of.php

    https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2013-06-26-Resurrection-of-RMBS.pdf

  13. metal.lamb says:

    Oh boy. Being 26 years old, this is something I had heard of many times from people my parents age, telling me it was all because “they” repealed that “Glass-Seagull” thingy that they lost all their investments and were broke today. I always assumed it was a fanciful unicorn of legislation which couldn’t have been nearly as magical as people seemed to always imply. Here’s what I wrote which encapsulates my very naive understanding:

    “Once upon a time, “the government” passed some laws regarding banking regulations. These laws separated some key powers, which (I’m told) make the financial system more stable and “fair”. At one point in the late 80’s(?) “the government”, with lots of prodding from bankster lobbyist, repealed Glass-Steagall. This apparently resulted in people taking risks within the banking(?) system that created an unstable economy, thus a lot of people lost money on investments and credit. Because “they” got away with this and were still powerful, of course, nothing changed.”

    I was really glad to see the headline for your podcast today, as this is something I’ve never really studied myself, but always assumed the narrative I’d constructed third-hand must be faulty. I was never really sure why, but thank you for confirming some of my suspicions and fulling in a lot of holes on another key piece of the foundation of modern history. It takes me back to “The Regulation Trap”, which is one of my favorite podcasts of yours.

    P.S. Happy Podcasting Birthday — my son, who’s grown up listening to you, will be celebrating his birthday June 1st as well 😀 Much Love!

  14. cush350 says:

    A great episode Professor Corbett. I feel like I attended the class, Wake Up, you are being played 101. It’s hard to not feel like one of the sheeple.

  15. herrqlys says:

    From the Federal Reserve Compliance Handbook definitions:
    https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/200601/int_depos.pdf

    Natural person —”An individual or a sole proprietorship. The term does not mean a corporation owned by an individual, a partnership or other association.”

    Do we take from that the idea that a corporation (owned by an individual, a partnership or other association) is an “unnatural” person?

    I ask this question as a lead in to some other thoughts that have bothered me:

    1) By what logic and methods has special status been conferred upon banks, which are for the most part private corporations? (That question might also be asked of insurance companies, too.)

    2) By what logic is it that banks in British Commonwealth countries can only be formed by charter?

    3) By what logic are transnational agreements even allowed to consider conferring special corporate legal rights in precedence over individuals (who are the foremost persons) and their governments?

    The Golden Rule probably applies.
    We, the people, are most probably considered as being just farm animals.

    If all those birds in Alfred Hitchcock’s eponymous classic had sublimated their instincts and ignored the scarecrows and the sounds of shotguns, their sharp beaks and claws could have done very real damage to the human population. We might all be living in underground cities at present.

  16. bharani says:

    Corbett Reporters and Observers,

    317 Truth about Glass Steagall.

    All I could write is I don’t know. What I remember vividly was the many new homes under shoddy construction and wondering, who could afford them. Especially since interest rates were so high. Who could purchase them??? I could not. So who in their right mind could? The question for me was why were interest rates so high. Why now, are they so low now?

  17. herrqlys says:

    I wonder if the majority understand that when you deposit currency into a bank, you are essentially loaning your currency to that bank, under the terms of your account agreement, and it is theirs to use as they see fit.

    This is why the banks can, and do, restrict your withdrawal privileges.

    As an illustrative example, a friend of mine recently received an amount by cheque from a gold dealer. He was advised to go to the dealer’s bank branch to cash the cheque. At the bank, even though they had the details to confirm the account and signature, that there were more than sufficient funds on deposit to cover the cheque, and that they had made phone confirmation as to it’s authenticity with the dealer, my friend was not allowed to cash the cheque. He was told he must have an account with the bank, and that in any event the funds would be withheld for 5 business days.

    So when you say to your bank, “I want my money”, or some such thing, it’s not “yours” in the way that you might think it is.

    • Pablo de Boer says:

      Hola aloha herrqlys,

      the story of your friend is a good reason why more people have to think voluntarily about digital currencies as Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc. Because these kind of currencies have the ability to skip the banksters when we make monetary transactions aka pay others for THEIR services/works without supporting the bankstas.

      You also mention if the majority understand that when you deposit currency into a bank, you are essentially loaning your currency to that bank, under the terms of your account agreement, and it is theirs to use as they see fit. But the banksters created with purpose in the past a monetary jargon with an almost incomprehensible word usage, so that most people do not understand the banking and monetary system as Henry Ford also quoted.

      It is well enough
      that people of the nation
      do not understand
      our banking and monetary system,
      for if they did,
      I believe there would be a revolution
      before tomorrow morning

      – Henry Ford, 1922, and one of Hitler’s American Business Partners –

      That’s why I appreciate people who make vid’s as below to inform the people on the real intentions of the banksters

      Who Controls the Money Controls the World
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDYfyAQ8lUI

      Saludos,

      Pablo de Boer

      • mkey says:

        Dear Pablo, I’d like to disagree with you on the bitcoin/alternate currency front.

        The problem is not the currency or the monetary system as is because those systems are what you make of them. If you use them for the good, prosperity will follow, if you don’t prosperity will avoid your neck of the woods like you or I would avoid the plague.

        Is digital currency out of reach of these psychopaths? I don’t think it is and as such I don’t see it as a solution.

        The problem is not the currency, but these elite banking vultures. They will always pray on us and look to suck some blood from our delicious necks. We could deal in paper currency or gold, but they’ll always be there. Even if we’re strong enough to repel their assault, they’ll get a new chance in a generation or two, when our progeny get complacent and think they have it under control.

        We can run, but we can’t escape them. Similar to agents in the matrix, they hold all the keys dear Pablo.

        • Pablo de Boer says:

          Hola aloha estimado mkey,

          My only concern on digital currencies is, when the globalist will have total control of the internet. If this will happen you and I also can’t anymore share our same and/or different views of life on señor James webpage. But as long the powers that shouldn’t be have not the fully control of the internet, others + you and I can share our multifarious views on señor James internet-page and I can use voluntarily digital currencies and refer to this magnificent and valuable interview of señor James on cryptocurrency.

          Bitcoin, Anarchy and Freedom with Roger Ver
          https://www.corbettreport.com/bitcoin-anarchy-and-freedom-with-roger-ver/

          Saludos y abrazos,

          Pablo de Boer

          • mkey says:

            There are several ways one can take control of a currency. One can buy into it, big time. As long as digital currency exchanges exist, this a serious threat. More of it they control, freer they are to influence its price.

            One can also do so by association, while providing a “true” solution of their own, which is basically the same as the one that is free of their influence.

            There are many dangers ahead, dear Pablo. I fear these currencies are nothing but a Trojan horse.

            • Pablo de Boer says:

              Dear mkey,

              Fear is the mind killer and that’s why fear is fully applied by the kakistocracy. And sometimes you have to take a risk, but always inform your self well on that risk.

              Max Keiser quote:

              Pope I beg you
              Tokenize peace

              Keiser Report: Bitcoin Stealing Gold’s Thunder (E 1076)
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijp5Ig9AE2A

              Saludos y abrazos,

              Pablo de Boer

              • Pablo de Boer says:

                And dear mkey,

                If you don’t want use cryptocurrency, that’s fine don’t use it, nobody is forcing you

                – Roger Ver –

              • mkey says:

                It’s not that type of fear, Pablo. I don’t fear the unknown, but what I do know. People like to flock and history likes to repeat itself. Before a true solution reveals itself, a vast array of false solutions will try and probably succeed to steer us away.

                I’m fully aware of my freedom to choose the currency as I see fit, that’s not the point.

            • Pablo de Boer says:

              Hola aloha mkey,

              The banksters and their government have so much fear for cryptocurrency and that’s why they want to control or ban it. As always the government uses false flag tactics to accomplish their goals and to serve the global bankstas.

              Calls To Ban Bitcoin Grow Louder After Ransom Ware Attack
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FERRaQhN1qE

              Saludos y viva la vida loca,

              Pablo de Boer

  18. matagordagreg says:

    I remember the greatest home salesman ever Henry Cisneros – no down payment , no income verification and no checking account required.
    Later he went to work for KB Builders (largest home builder in the country).

  19. alexander.c says:

    This is an interesting experiment. Game on! I understand that the Glass/Steagall Act of 1933 was passed as part of FDR’s New Deal reform legislation and was thought of as creating a “Chinese Wall” between commercial banking and investment banking. Banks that generated their income from these two sub-sectors were forced to de-merge into separate entities with separate balance sheets, reporting, directorates, etc. This was done to avoid repeats of early-1930s financial catastrophes, whereby banks that maintained savings deposits on behalf of their customers (traditional retail banking business of relending customers’ savings), while at the same time assuming significant risks in their trading and/or issuance of securities (speculative business on behalf of “sophisticated” and wealthy enterprises) had gone bust through some ill-fated speculative enterprise in the latter business category, and, as a result of the two types of business being conducted under one roof, had not only wiped out their securities trading/issuance capital but also the savings accounts of their retail customers along with it. The idea, as far as I understand it, was to shield the ordinary, money-saving public from the excesses of speculative activity in which they neither participated in the first place nor ultimately would profit from, if successful.

  20. keith.k says:

    Good idea. Glass-Steagall has been one of my talking points.

    However, surprisingly, when I did take a money and banking course, the teacher made a special point to go over the ’08 bubble, and never mentioned Glass-Steagall. Instead, we were taught that it was the credit default swaps (CDSs) and Credit Default Obligations (CDOs) and their overrated nature through the ratings agencies (all obviously bought out by the people who have owned the banks for so long). The bad loans (mortgages) were a part, to be sure, but the fact that the bad loans were given higher ratings than they should have — being bundled up and averaged out ’til only the most patient could untangle them — and the sheeple-bankers bought into it, was a huge part. Others I have read point to the cyclical nature of the market, but also point to the mathematician/economist who came up w/ the happy lackadaisical equations for them.:-)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P160_odTwyY

    I have, for a very long time, thought markets were cyclical. The pattern can be discerned and made better or worse… besides the point when you know how to automate almost everything.

    • keith.k says:

      As an aside, I would personally consider 3% or thereabouts to be an ideal inflation rate, w/ good investments in technological innovation, which has been about the average since The Federal Reserve, w/ notable exceptions. Given the resurrected nature of humanity, however, all of that really ought to be moot. From the beginning, there should have been proper teaching and abundance for all, IMHO. Those UFOs Mr Corbett doesn’t like talking about happened in antiquity and long before even the Nazi Bell, U2 the CIA likes to talk about, and the TR-3B. Resurrection, also, after all, is science and only a miracle to those w/o the knowledge of the science…

      The markets themselves were antiquated many thousands of years ago.

  21. Fnasse says:

    Hello James.

    You again turned my understanding upside down. Thank you for this episode and the good presentation of the topic.

    I must however point out that I am still a bit offended by your recent conversation on the Corbett Report Extras with Sybil Edmonds, where you at the end pointed out that the YouTube comments are “useless” and that you never look at them. I have all these years put a lot of thought into placing good comments there. So all useless, well, that was worth the time then.

    • dubrey says:

      Fnasse:
      There appears to be a pattern here.
      When James and Sybil get together, sometimes the fact finding and constructive discussion
      takes a back seat to opinion..Themselves being short but powerfully implicit injections into the conversation. Strange how these opinions, upon further review draw a huge, tantalizingly, negative response.
      Like the one about too many people believe all these “conspiracy theories” awhile back. The implication? Those who look study what the government says, the official story, are wasting their time. They risk become crazy “conspiracy Theorists”.
      (those who speculate about holograms and such are for another discussion)

      i’ll inject a little opinion. That would have a tendency to anger
      people who have objectively studied and proven to themselves, and concluded that the evidence points to the event not happening as they were are told it happened. Then James and Sybil come along and appearing not to have done the same research, give a derisive opinion. Hmmmm.

      James is very smart, he doesn’t make mistakes like that. ….Think about that statement…… 🙂

  22. minnie says:

    I’m totally with you James on people generally taking things at face value, and as a history graduate and former journalist, if I’m very interested in an issue I tend to look at the sources and check on the facts. BUT I haven’t done that with Glass Steagall.
    From the top of my head, I think it was a US act that was drafted in the 1930s in response to the Wall Street Crash and Great Depression to prevent banks from using investors’ money for risky speculation. It was repealed in the 1990s.

  23. bladtheimpailer says:

    At the pause request this is my knowledge of Glass Steagall: FDR ordered an inquiry to seek the causes and solutions to the Great Depression. One group of economists blamed the banking class and easy credit leading to a stock market bubble largely based on margin loans. Their solution was entailed in the ‘Chicago Plan’ which called for the power to create money, and therefore credit, to be returned to the government. The bankers of course greatly opposed to losing this omnipotent power came up with Glass Steagall and some other legislation under the Emergency Banking Act (?) to save their position and to more easily tie the American population to be the debt slaves of their system. FDR was later to reportedly to have said that ‘we saved capitalism from itself’ or words to that effect. He did neither of course.

    The human sufferings around the world are unimaginable by most of us who have no memory of that time especially as those older generations have passed or are very quickly passing. As a teen I was greatly interested in the remembrances of my parents and grandparents who lived through the G.D. Stories of my Grandfather bringing strangers home for a meal, wash up and a warm bed for the night, or a few days stay if a person was particularly worn down and beginning to starve. Bankers in their greed are always finding new ways of destroying the economy we all rely upon for our living.

  24. minnie says:

    I enjoyed this exercise in critical thinking. But it depresses me to think about what an uphill struggle we have in coaxing people to dare to venture outside their programming.
    Yesterday evening during a family meal, the subject of Richard Branson came up. My maths teacher brother-in-law, enthusiastically supported by my University Professor sister, said: “Did you see those photos of Branson kitesurfing with Obama? What a cool guy!” I didn’t feel like starting a family row, so I quietly changed the subject.
    I have enormous respect for my sister and brother-in-law for their work, but when it comes to politics and world affairs, they cling tightly to their ideology, like most “intelligent” and “educated” people. With that level of critical thinking and left-right paradigm programming, which is so widespread, ESPECIALLY among the “intelligentsia”, where do we even start?

    • mkey says:

      I would have destroyed the atmosphere during that meal, I don’t think I would have been able to keep my yapper shut.

      You could have said “oh, lets see what’s new on TeeVee and then covertly streamed this https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-312-obama-a-legacy-of-ashes/

      A version of this video with the fox logo should be made.

    • minnie says:

      Hmm… maybe I’ll try that sometime!
      Just to clarify – the reason I quietly changed the subject was not because I’m afraid of controversy, but due to past experience. If I say so much as (in a polite and respectful voice) “Have you ever met Richard Branson or are you going by what his PR agents place in the media?”, or “This is the same Obama that happily gave the go-ahead for drone strikes on families including small children,” this will be the trigger for a big family row, often with people storming out – really because the truth is too tough for them to bear.
      I usually get a similarly explosive reaction from “well educated” friends if I politely and quietly dare to question the accepted view on Brexit and other topics – even when I start by saying, “I may be wrong; I have been wrong in the past, but this is how I see it…”

      • mkey says:

        I got that, yeah. Such situations will either lead to cognitive dissonance, of which the news bearer is perceived as the cause, leading to a conflict or… well, that’s it. Ten years ago, I would have reacted the same way.

        Even if someone’s imagination is tickled it will probably take days for this person to even get a handle on the situation and maybe start asking some questions.

  25. mkey says:

    We missed it, I think. Another one bit the dust two days ago.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

    Just recently I thought about how this guy doesn’t have long to go, oh well.

  26. rob32367 says:

    I will admit I have not researched Glass-Steagall and have assumed what people were saying is true b/c it has come from so many stories. From the title of this podcast, I am assuming much of what I am about to write is not correct, but here it is anyway:

    Glass-Steagall was legislation written in the 30’s during FDR’s New Deal. It separated risky investment banking from people’s savings. So banks could gamble with their own money and not ours. After this was passed, the US experienced the longest period without major financial problems in its history. It was repealed during the Clinton administration. Its repeal played a role in the global financial collapse in 2008 (although the issues with playing games was the major cause, the collapse was also helped along by the repeal of GS). A few lawmakers are now looking to instill parts of GS (separating our money from their money).

    I am looking forward to finding out how wrong I am.

  27. rob32367 says:

    I will admit I have not researched Glass-Steagall and have assumed what people were saying is true b/c it has come from so many stories. From the title of this podcast, I am assuming much of what I am about to write is not correct, but here it is anyway:

    Glass-Steagall was legislation written in the 30’s during FDR’s New Deal. It separated risky investment banking from people’s savings. So banks could gamble with their own money and not ours. After this was passed, the US experienced the longest period without major financial problems in its history. It was repealed during the Clinton administration. Its repeal played a role in the global financial collapse in 2008 (although the issues with playing games with mortgages was the major cause, the collapse was also helped along by the repeal of GS). A few lawmakers are now looking to instill parts of GS (separating our money from their money).

    I am looking forward to finding out how wrong I am.

  28. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Corbett: “…It is a fascinating history….”
    No kidding. I also enjoyed how things came full circle. Different factions (mob bosses), manipulation ploys on the public outrage, the value of non-prejudicial truth, etc.
    Thanks James.

    My hope…
    I hope some college or High School kid for a History or Government class utilizes this Corbett Report episode for some kind of presentation or class project report.
    Heck, I would like to see a Professor use this video for a class.

    • herrqlys says:

      Some thoughts on the enactment of government legislation, and how things like Glass-Seagall, the Patriot Act, Affordable Healthcare, etc. are born, and get through the political mill.

      Recently I’ve had my doubts about Noam Chomsky still having the intellectual vigour and the legendary perspective he has shown for so long on so many subjects – most notably US foreign policy. I was particularly disturbed by the nature of remarks, or the general lack thereof, on 9/11. I had given some allowance to his advancing age (now 88), although Henry Kissinger is still potently cogent at 94.

      In an interview [well worth reading the entire thing] conducted a year ago, Chomsky had a very interesting collection of thoughts (maybe his medications have been fine-tuned):
      http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/03/anti-intellectualism-terrorism-and-elections-in-contemporary-education-a-discussion-with-noam-chomsky/

      Some excerpts of relevance to this thread:
      *********************************
      Dan Falcone: And usually these movements come from students, all of the things that make us a more civilized society, it was often young people.

      Noam Chomsky: It often comes from students for a good reason. They, students, have a degree of freedom that nobody else has.
      *********************************
      Saul Isaacson: Can teachers play a role in politicizing students?

      Noam Chomsky: Yeah. You ought to teach kids that elections take place but that’s not politics. If you want to know how legislation is made it doesn’t come from elections.

      …the point of funding is basically to buy access…if they know you’re funding them they’re going to give you time. Time means you send your corporate lawyers to write the legislation that the representative will then sign without reading.

      That’s pretty much the way it works. So most of the representatives don’t know what the hell’s going on. They’re mostly raising money or kissing babies or something like that. They have to sign legislation…getting the information from corporate lobbyists, who buy access through campaign funding. The end result is to get the kind of legislation we see. I think all of this should be a part of civics, becoming a citizen, learning how the country works.

      Saul Isaacson: Of course we don’t offer that anymore.

      Dan Falcone: Yeah, it’s not even a class.

      Noam Chomsky: No. It doesn’t help keeping a job.
      *********************************
      If special interest groups can be given the job of drafting legislation, we can make a stab at understanding the real intent behind their efforts. However, if the original Glass-Steagall sections of the Banking Act of 1933 were more about an intercine war between the Rockefeller group and the House of Morgan, rather than in the public interest, how is an abjectly uninformed electorate going to even know cui bono?

      • Pablo de Boer says:

        Hola aloha herrqlys,

        Hereby I want to share with your person and others this magnificent and well researched podcast made by señor James on the globalist’s mouthpiece Noam C

        Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper (video)
        https://www.corbettreport.com/meet-noam-chomsky-academic-gatekeeper-video/

        Saludos,

        Pablo de Boer

        • herrqlys says:

          Thank you, Pablo, for that Corbett Report #285 link. Being relatively new to this site I have yet to discover all the information and ideas contained in the archives.

          In Chomsky’s case I think James was overly critical, and failed to see any other possible interpretations other than what he speculated upon. He says he can’t begin to guess at Chomsky’s motivations for a lack of criticism about the diabolical role of the Fed, JFK’s assassination, or the events of 9/11, but he had already decided it was gate-keeping. This is evident even in the podcast title. I would call that having already concluded on a motivation.

          Let me throw out some other ideas on motivation.

          We’re all human, and to err is human. No one is omniscient. Perhaps his grasp of economics isn’t as firm as his grasp of foreign policy. Chomsky’s 1967 essay on the obligation for intellectuals to speak out is a correct one, but how many of us fail (all too often) to make each and every personal action in accordance with our conscious principles?

          A highly visible and popular personality like Chomsky gets far too many opportunities to avoid some of his comments going sideways. And once you voice thoughts, they are out there, and in his case impossible to retract.

          Was he being true to himself? How will we ever know. If anything he was avoiding saying something provocative – not lying. He chose not to wade too deeply into those debates. With a conscious effort to suppress personal bias, I failed to see the same starkness that James did.

          The circumstances in our personal lives can colour our thoughts at different points in time. The perceived ramifications of some ideas upon important personal relationships can be restricting. It is possible to be reticent out of fear. One commenter brought up the spectre of Chomsky being shown a picture of his grandkids. This could be plausible if only because Chomsky’s huge and respected reputation could sway public opinion on the explosive implications of the JFK and 9/11 events, for example.

          I have had many personal experiences of people I respected and whose primary point was valid but failing in one or another aspect of insight, for whatever reason. Just recently I had an e-mail exchange with a respected blogger who responded to my comment with a simple “mierda del toro”, and nothing else, not even a supporting counter argument or link, such as I had provided to him.

          Anyway, 3000 characters can whittle away in no time. I could expand on many of these ideas. Best I let this rest as is.

          • Pablo de Boer says:

            Buenos dias herrqlys,

            Muchas gracias for sharing your view on Noam and señor James. First I don’t think señor James had already a pre-concluded opinion on Noam Chomsky’s suspicious and strange behavior, because what I read, listen and see of señor James is, that he always investigate exhaustively the topic he researches. But he only knows if he already had a pre-biased opinion on Noam before he started his investigation on Chomsky. And when señor James encounters new information on a topic he will revise his view just like he did on the Glass- Steagle act.

            When I saw Noam Chomsky 5 years ago for the first time and listened to his opinion on the foreign policy of the US of A, my first impression was, what a wise person. I saw more lectures of him on the internet and read articles of him. But after a while I saw for the first time a lecture of him in which Noam presented his view on 911 and I was heavily surprised on his view about 911. But to be honest, I became not directly suspicious about him. Later I saw other lectures of him on the 911 topic and my mind started to reconsider my view on Noam Chomsky’s intentions. Especially when Noam said that he never met or read an engineer or a technical high educated person, who opposes the governmental policy on 911. My first reaction was, how can I know about the architects and engineers for 911 truth and I live on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean and Noam didn’t not know about them. ….. Is he ignorant or is he a liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            But before I saw for the first time Noam’s point of view on 911, he had had accumulated a lot of credit with me because his views on other topics. But then another lecture of Noam crossed my digital path in where he explained his view on the FED and really dear herrqlys, I was completely astonished by his view and also heavily jarred. It felt like6 the second plane hit the WTC tower and my positive and accumulated thoughts on Noam collapsed just like the 2 WTC towers and building 7 on 911. I felt betrayed and that feeling came from inside of me. This same feeling arises in me when I obser6ve that a fellow human is being mistreated on the street by others . I know that in the western society people (not all) say never let your feelings lead you, but I do not fully agree on this view / attitude, because I’m not a robot, but I have to be aware of those feelings and not get out of control by them and those feelings are natural. I also have a totally different view of the western definition on the word “coincidence” , because for me each coincidence is always a significant event, but that is another topic and maybe for another time to share our views on it.

            Last year I read William Blum’s book “America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy”. William has a very good analysis on the American foreign policy, but his view on 911 is just as ridicule as Noam’s view on this topic. I prefer to be informed by señor James, the journalist of Newsbud and Global Research and a lot of others. I also liked a lot to read, to listen at and watch James Perloff, especially his knowledge on the vaccination mob of Big Pharma. But when señor Perloff last year started to support Dumb Trump, because of his hatred towards Hitlary, I got disappointed in hi6m. But señor Perloff re-awakened after Dumb Trump was a short time in office and now he makes excellent analysis on Dumb Trump’s internal and foreign policies. So I restarted to follow señor Perloff. Last week he was at Our Interesting Times, a podcast made by Tim Kelly. Tim is a right wing Christian, but a lot of his view on historical and current events are interesting.

            James Perloff on Trump, Syria and the New World Order
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFjsvyQKtRs

            Señor James Corbett also appeared last year on Tim Kelly’s podcast.
            The Manchurian Candidate – FLNWO #31
            https://www.corbettreport.com/the-manchurian-candidate-flnwo-31/

            I think that Noam will not re-awaken as señor Perloff, because he is a part of the deep state, and I also learned when I want to expand and broaden my horizon, I must never follow only one person or one movement. And as long the internet is not under fully control of the corporations, I can share with you this interesting podcast of señor James on the Corporatocracy.

            Meet the Corporatocracy (Video)
            https://www.corbettreport.com/meet-the-corporatocracy-video/

            + bonus

            The Best Enemies Money Can Buy — Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany — Prof. Antony C. Sutton
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3vZNSAi-QM&t=856s

            Your best teacher
            Is your last mistake

            Saludos,

            Pablo de Boer

      • herrqlys says:

        As posted above:
        “…how is an abjectly uninformed electorate going to even know cui bono?”

        I’ll answer my own question: they will not, because by offering a plausible narrative through effective control of public media, the invisible hand of the deep state creates the public’s perception of events.

        • Pablo de Boer says:

          Hola aloha herrqlys,

          señor james gave in his podcast the same view on Noam C as you just answered your own question.

          Saludos,

          Pablo de Boer

  29. HomeRemedySupply says:

    QUESTION
    Is there a connection between “Housing Starts” (new virgin mortgages) in the marketplace and pumping more money into the economy?

    I have noticed a rapid increase in real estate prices within the past 4-5 years. Not only for homes, but rents have rapidly climbed way up there. Talk about “real inflation”…whoa boy!
    https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/case-shiller-home-price-index
    and

    From talking to people who already own a home, getting financing for rental property is relatively easy (no hard bank interrogation – just like Washington Mutual).

    • Pablo de Boer says:

      Hola aloha Texan digital amigo HRS,

      Yesterday I was searching on the internet to inform my self on Governmental Housing Policy and other stuff which señor James aka agorism Jesus (oops that is blasphemy to compare an agoristic anarchist with Jesus 🙂 ) mentioned in his podcast on GSA. And this Texan article crossed my digital path and when I read it, I thought maybe it is some interesting stuff for my Texan digital amigo HRS.

      GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS BOOST HOUSING COSTS AND POVERTY
      https://www.texaspolicy.com/press_release/detail/government-regulations-boost-housing-costs-and-poverty

      Here in Holland the government has a huge amount of involvement in the housing market. Even when you own a House and you want to put an extension on your house, you first have to ask the local government for a license / permission. And almost all Dutch municipalities have building regulations (bouwvoorschriften) in where the government determine which kind of colored bricks you may use if you build a new house and also which kind of color you are allowed to use for other parts of the house like the roof, Window frames….. But a lot of foreigners and the Dutch sheeple people think that Holland is a free and liberal country….

      None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
      – von Goethe (Not Dutch) –

  30. bladtheimpailer says:

    As for the cause of the meltdown it would be to the bankers convenience to place the blame on government putting pressure on them, lol Frank threatening the bankers, to lend to persons not qualifying for a mortgage. The bankers were up to their conniving eyeballs in any legislation or other government policies instructing them to bubble the housing market and in the aftermath strip something like 40% of everyday American’s on paper wealth for themselves. While we did have bankers left holding the toxic bag with bundled rotten CDOs and other such financial instruments, they were also trying to flog them as fast as they could and some, like Goldman, even taking the short derivative side against the very packages they were selling to their customers. What is that old adage? I believe it goes something like “Nothing happens in politics [and the financial markets] that is not thoroughly planned.” Derivatives being brought forth in Canada during the mid 80S were once considered illegal. It was also illegal for banks to be on the futures exchange bidding up prices but they managed to weasel their on them…shall I go on and on?

  31. nosoapradio says:

    Well, that the evil Rockefellers would be at the shadowy helm of the Glass-Steagall smokescreen, having deviously instituted it decades in advance in an effort to slap down fellow-financial predators and promote the tyranny of collectivist global technocracy certainly fits with my emotionally-driven biases… just kidding.

    May 29th. Just managed to steal time to listen to this masterpiece of lucidity. Just learned about Brzezinski’s death. So the address of the rock I’m living under is… kidding again.

    I may’ve mentioned once that I had a really fabulous theater teacher who would often repeat:

    “I don’t know what I think until I see what I say”.

    Perhaps language is important…

    An extraordinary case made for the humility and tediousness as well as the glorious rewards of truth-seeking. Truth is always more breath-taking than fiction…

    My most profound respect and thanks again for this future hidden gem.

  32. alexander.r says:

    Glass stegal(can’t even spell it) was apparently a law preventing the same entity (corporation not person) from being involved in investment banking and commercial banking. The media basically blamed the gfc on the removal of the restriction (Clinton era removal put in? I guess 1930). (then so did everyone else). I personally can not see how this had anything to do with gfc. The conflict of interest argument is not valid since you could still own or be on the boards of 2 separate banks. The only value I could see was that it stopped banks selling you dodgy investments while you are trying to deposit a cheque, which I do once a year if that.

    As far as I’m aware it never stopped commercial banks selling off loans etc. I would not know if we have a similar law in Australia.

    Ps I remember studying the Asian financial crisis at university in early 2000s and thinking to myself if I know what was done wrong they certainly did this collapse was probably intentional got my best ever marks lecturer must have thought the same although he never mentioned it.

  33. alexander.c says:

    Dear James,
    That the various legislative repeals manifest in the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 were not the cause of the sub-prime train wreck and the global credit freeze of 2007 that followed is true enough. But I would nevertheless contend that this act of deregulation did play a central role in the crisis, in ways not touched upon this video. Namely, that the GLBA laid the legal foundation crucially needed by the US authorities to validate and structure their bailout scheme.

    For not only did it serve to repeal the Glass-Steagall sections already discussed, but, and perhaps more importantly, it also revoked key provisions of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 around which the TARP program as it materialized could not have been structured. In particular, the GLBA allowed for the ad-hoc transformation of gaggle of insolvent Wall Street loser firms into a small number of very large conglomerates spanning financial services that previously could not have been housed under one roof.

    Moreover, seemingly with the stroke of a pen, these newly restructured entities were now eligible for financial assistance from the federal government under existing statutes.

    Among other very swift consolidations, Gramm–Leach–Bliley allowed for JP Morgan Chase, previously strictly limited to the commercial banking sphere, to now inhale Bear Stearns (an investment bank) for a pittance, while Bank of America could take over Merrill Lynch’s failed business in like fashion. In particular, it afforded investment banks Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley specially granted charters as bank holding companies, thus changing them from being essentially firms that had bet the farm and lost one day into the most profitable (and powerful) financial institutions in America (after the Fed) the next. For one thing, these two firms had their pick of which financial services enterprises in distress to mop up and rehabilitate with federal funds at considerable profit.

    Hence the oversized bonuses and golden parachutes that Christmas: it was not really a matter of the executives being abnormally greedy at a highly inappropriate time, so much as the fact that with a little help from Congress and the Fed, it really had been a bumper year for them! And when you consider that these firms and their senior executives had long been profiting from their privileged arrangements with the Fed and Treasury (as primary dealers in govt bonds, to name but one example), from their point of view it was just business as usual – and business was rocking.

    To conclude, I trust it will be conceded that the financial crisis of 2007/8 was significantly informed by this bullish year (for some) on Wall Street, which would not have been possible (given the utmost urgency and speed with which the bailout operation had to be implemented in order to succeed), were it not for the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act conveniently having “tilled the soil,” as it were, nearly a decade earlier.

    • herrqlys says:

      You make very good points, alexander. Perhaps you’ve taken the time to read, and digest, the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999, which I haven’t. Your depth of understanding is much greater than mine, but nevertheless I have speculated about how the repeal of interlocking directorate restrictions might be meant for enabling financial mergers and acquisitions.

      A similar “tilling of the soil” was done in the case of the Patriot Act of 2001, passed about 7 weeks after 9/11. This piece of legislation was essentially written by Joe Biden back in 1995. The Patriot Act was far more pernicious in that the 1000+ pages were delivered without giving members of Congress the time to even read it, let alone digest and debate it. The summary of that bill can be found at:

      https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/3162

      An amendment to this act, the USA Freedom Act of 2015, contains the laughable terminology “roving wiretap”. Somehow we just find it hard to properly modify the language. Using something like “mobile telecommunications intercept” isn’t as catchy, or iconic.

  34. VoltaicDude says:

    In this podcast you really did delve into some challenging stuff, James. Brave of you to initiate this search for truth, right out of the blue, and obviously an example of your truly independent nature – exemplary.

    I timidly refrained from following the game exactly as designed to spare people whatever drivel I could have come up with on Glass-Steagall (G-S) and I suppose to spare myself the deep shame of this truth. I guess I too liked to talk G-S without ever really “knowing” G-S. Alas, so much of life seems similarly inadequate.

    You amply prove with surprising facts that this subject is not as simple as we thought: Who was Glass? Who was Steagall? Those may sound like ad hominem, but such concerns in regards to socially-based-knowledge are indeed relevant in the real world – while the ad hominem caution must always continue to be a fundamental arbiter to which we voluntarily (in good faith and for our own sakes) discipline ourselves (which is ironically actually your point!).

    And the Banking Act of 1933 – indeed! Four little sections were what we were actually referring to the whole time! This is really important and worthwhile information to explore. Of course the results for me are just a million more questions! Ahhhh – everyday a million more questions. It’s a weight, but also comforting to know we’ll never run out of questions!

    Is Barney Frank naïve or simply evil? Did he actually want to break the banksters contributions to the structural poverty that the industry has always helped support by design; or did he actually mean for the banksters to ingeniously apply a predatory-lending scheme to their mortgage industry so as to finally result in a windfall bail-out for the industry survivors – just as Morgan leveraged his position after the 1929 crash that he orchestrated?

    Is the Rockefeller-Morgan in-fighting feud the real deal, an aside, or a potential ruse? Is the FDIC (established through The Banking Act of 1933) structurally confined logically to separating “commercial” and “investment” banking due to the need to specifically limit liabilities in pursuit of protecting retail-consumer-bank-account assets?

    Is the idea of insuring retail-consumer-bank-accounts (to a certain amount, a general protection of the “little people”) with a federal (tax-funded) program fundamentally more just than bailing out too-big-to-fail banksters directly with federal (tax-funded) programs?

    Once bundled, are mortgage-backed securities actually an investment-bank commodity, inappropriate as a commercial-bank holding (as well as being dangerously obscure to boot)?

    Were Wachovia’s bad-assets directly issued mortgages that they simply, naively held on to? Were those bad-assets owned by an affiliate?

    The meat and potatoes of the “four sections” in question are the two sections separating and delineating: 1) “commercial-for-comercial” and 2) “investment-for-investment.” So the add-ons: 3) “affiliates” and 4) “boards” were meant to block loop-holes in the “system.” So how deceptive (enabling) is it to just drop the two sections meant to curtail loop-holes?

    That’s nine questions right there (999,991 left), but I’ve already reached my allotted space.

    • VoltaicDude says:

      After posting I noticed a misstatement above. It should have read, “just as Morgan leveraged his position after the Panic of 1907 that he orchestrated?” I guess nobody noticed – was hoping it would spur some feedback, including about some of the other points, which I think remain valid questions.

      I like the idea of going back and questioning basic assumptions – it is indeed very useful, but it is a never ending process of trying to stay open to new developments while not falling-prey to new misunderstandings and deceptions.

      The Kennedy-challenging-the-Fed theory did make sense for anyone unfamiliar with the details, but you show how the details actually explain the “exec order” meme in quite a different light.

      At some point the “exec order” meme helped supplant many people’s notions about the official story that Oswald was a lone gunman – those people were disabused of “the Oswald lie.” Unfortunately some of those people now feel irrationally dependent on that new belief, and have an emotional knee-jerk reaction to reject any criticism of it.

      Three points there. One, obviously (and of course nobody here ever said this, but), the fact that the “exec order” meme is incorrect does not mean “the Oswald lie” is not really a lie.” Two, it is important to understand what the “exec order” was actually about (that’s not unimportant). Three – closely related to two – we should all be wondering how this “exec order” meme came about. It could have been just a simple misunderstanding in origin; or it could have been planted (also an important point).

      But just this little hitch got me to considering some more points about all this.

      Your inclusion of the word “Public” as part of the Banking act of 1933 is I think very interesting. It’s a mistake, but there is also logic to it (also something not to be simply discounted). The 1933 Act was far more just and publicly-minded than the Act of 1913 that established the Fed – that’s irony.

      The Panic of 1907 was manipulated by hook and by crook, and then the 1913 Act was hyped as a solution” – of course total hogwash.

      But establishing the FDIC was actually one of the most stabilizing, fair and important financial developments of the 20th century. The four Glass-Steagall provisions in the Banking Act of 1933 help make it complete, All four are essential to its own internal logic, and removing any of them could only be a malicious act – the “efficiencies” and “competitiveness” arguments are nonsensical hype; misleading; hogwash.

      Those arguments are valid only that they represent potential revenue gains for the banksters, but one has to consider that criteria more important than insuring basic deposits and precluding catastrophic runs – and the manipulation of those potentialities by “clever” banksters.

      • VoltaicDude says:

        In 1929 the House of Morgan extended loans after the first few days of the free-fall, stabilizing the market temporarily. They then pulled out and let it rip. That suggests to me that they were not in fact really in control or expecting the crash. They took the time to analyze it and came to the conclusion that it would be good for them. It was a bubble that burst (I refrain purposely from calling it a “natural” bubble).

        The Tech Bubble of the 80’s seems to have been similar in how it came about (although I’m not wed to this notion). So 1929 and the Tech Bubble seem like similar animals.

        But 2008 seem more like 1907, except much more sophisticated and complex, with a longer trajectory to the general plan. 2008 is dependent on three steps.

        1) The set-up of a long-term predatory lending scheme, based on the misrepresentation of balloon mortgages to naïve retail clients (those mortgages set to “explode” within a specific time frame) – and this scheme exploits all of the misleading political memes that could be squeezed out of it to confuse and divert everyone’s understanding of what was happening.

        2) The invention of obscure complex derivatives created from bundling sub-prime mortgages, along with collusion from the ratings agencies.

        3) The targeting of institutions: some would fail (like Wachovia), but some would “have” to be given a windfall-bail-out, or else – all in a murky environment where it was difficult even for most industry insiders to tell heads from tales. These operations would have been manipulated at the boardroom level.

        The “saved” institutions could also then benefit from the market’s new profile of players – analogous to “leaving the table” to your advantage when playing billiards.

        Only in Iceland have the banksters associated with these criminal activities gone to jail.

        There are all sorts of unsavory characters on both sides of this issue and both sides of the corporatist-parties aisles.

        The catch for me is that the main refrain calling for this change and for deregulating the fundamentally criminal Fed/Banking system in general is always “we could make more money!” So what? More money for banksters – that usually means disaster for everyone else, not shared wealth, or a proverbial “rising-tide.”

  35. amoelcordero says:

    Glass-Steagall was passed during the Depression era of the 1930s to counter the gambling of depositors’ funds on the stock markets at huge leverage, which in 1929 caused a crisis greater than any before it in American financial annals through a failure of confidence which caused many investors to cash out as stocks slid & caused calls on highly leveraged borrowing that investors couldn’t fund, playing with mostly borrowed money. As a remedy to this dangerous situation, the Glass-Steagall law separated investment (gambling) banks from commercial (deposits) banks, set up the Federal Depositors’ Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to guarantee a minimum replacement of losses per account during bank failures & set up a limit on leveraging of invested funds (I think 12:1). When it was repealed, the investment banks once again could also accept deposits for savings/checking & use that money to buy & sell stocks & securities, usually at increasingly higher leveraging, once again endangering customer funds, & the naysayers of the repeal’s warnings were born out in 2007-8 when automatic sell orders were triggered as the stocks were collapsing in value & nervous investors sold their stock at a loss, so much so that the edifice of profit crashed & trading had to be suspended. The heavily leveraged banks had to come up with the money they owed but couldn’t come up with it because their assets were mostly junk from the burst housing bubble & other rackets they had been practicing, necessitating cash infusions from the Fed in the form of Quantum Easing I & II & III etc., at a practically non-existent interest rate; thus losses were socialized (on the tax payers backs) & gains were privatized (to the people who caused the problem in the first place), creating the greatest disparity of wealth to poverty since 1929.

  36. stee says:

    did you mean for the intro to state “… doing *their* dirty work for them.” ?

  37. jckays says:

    James, you are probably already aware of these folk, for sure they are aware of you:

    “”The Ruling Class Preservation Society likes The Corbett Report. We mentioned the Report and other supposedly non mainstream media in another post on the shifting political and media landscape.

    The Corbett Report has done excellent reporting, but it also parrots Libertarian/Austrian economics, which the Preservation Society disavows rigorously (though… “”

    “They” are well worth your research and an article for the less informed. Check them out here: https://therulingclassobserver.com/the-ruling-class-preservation-society-rcps/

    IMnsHO and E.

    • herrqlys says:

      When I had read that earlier today, it jarred me. Roberts definitely isn’t a shill for Wall Street or the Fed. He has a PhD in economics, has held several responsible positions in economics and economic journalism, and he has decades of insider experience and knowledge (see bio).

      Most importantly in this case would be his experience as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under Reagan, which would include a faculty for reading with intent the legalese in government legislation.

      Perhaps there are some hidden threads that are not so obvious to us dabblers in the crafting and wording of legislation. Anyway, it prompted me to re-review the underlying history and documents but all I could come away with was some vague uneasiness.

      What was clarified for me was the legislative history that James had made that hadn’t stuck with me the first time around.

      1932 Glass-Steagall Act
      1933 The Emergency Bank Act
      1933 The Bank Act (common name Glass-Steagall for sections 16,20,21,32)

      But I did find an interesting article on the gold confiscation of 1933 (Executive Order 6102), and the financial reality in the US economy that had prompted it:
      http://www.moonlightmint.com/bailout.htm

      Perhaps in addition to the wording in the legislation, it could be important to consider federal banking regulators’ interpretations of the Act in the discussion. After all, it’s their take on things that determines if the government receives any impetus to intervene before a crisis appears. We could add the role, and possible deformation, of the major credit rating agencies, and just who in fact regulates them.

      The investment culture of the early 21st century was far more sophisticated and global than in the 1920s, plus the introduction of derivatives products had really magnified exposures for financial institutions.

      I’m still very suspicious over Carter Glass’ involvement for the actual intent of the legislation. He introduced the final version of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and gave the majority view as chair of the House Committee on Banking and Currency.

      Maybe the significance of Glass-Steagall related legislation, including the repealed sections of 1999, isn’t fully appreciated yet. And since John McCain is supporting Elizabeth Warren in the introduction of Glass-Steagall II for the 21st century, the whole thing makes my skin crawl.

  38. mgriffin says:

    Thanks much for the clarification. One thing that remains, for me, a curiosity… We have seen that the Fed can seemingly maintain interest rates at or near zero indefinitely. Without having hard data at my fingertips, I seem to recall that most of the subprime mortgages were of the adjustable rate species. Most stories in the press and alternative media seem to indicate that repaying the mortgage itself, as initially structured, wasn’t the problem, the sudden, numerous rate hikes caused the massive series of defaults. The official excuse on the Fed’s part was to cool the inflationary price runup. I wonder, though, if they weren’t aware of the number of ARMs that rate spikes would put at risk and acted for other, unspoken, reasons.

  39. Ukdavec says:

    Previous Corbett interviewee, Nomi Prins perpetuates the myth of the cause of the GFC 2007

    ” By November 1999, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act totally. The abusive marriages of gamblers and savers could once again be consummated.

    And who doesn’t remember the result: the financial crisis of 2007-2008 that led to taxpayer-funded bailouts, subsidies, loans, and sweetheart fraud-settlement deals.”

    http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176293/tomgram%3A_nomi_prins%2C_in_washington%2C_is_the_glass%28-steagall%29_half_empty_or_half_full

  40. herrqlys says:

    Talking about Glass-Steagall gets murkier when someone supposedly as sophisticated as Nomi Prins refers to The Glass-Seagall Act of 1933 when she’s really referring to The Bank Act of 1933, whose common name is Glass-Steagall. Legislation using the formal name The Glass-Seagall Act was a 1932 bill.

    If legislation was written only in Latin then the names wouldn’t matter, and we could just take the priest’s word for it.

    • Corbett says:

      “If legislation was written only in Latin then the names wouldn’t matter, and we could just take the priest’s word for it.”

      I fear that your incredibly apt and incredibly incisive historical analogy will be lost amidst the tumult of this thread. But I noticed it. Very well said.

    • mkey says:

      Secret societies can not function without a secret language. Is the language used as a weapon or is the lack of understanding simply a result of conditioning? When I try reading their doublespeak my brain goes into full panic mode.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top