[quote=patb]
All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.
between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.
within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.[/quote]
You’ve muddled both your history and your banking acts considerably.
Garn-St. Germain (1982) had nothing to do with interstate banking although it did contribute to the S&L Crisis. Its sponsors were Garn (a Democrat) and St. Germain (a Republican). Its co-sponsors were Chuck Schumer (Democrat) and Steny Hoyer (Democrat). Three Democrats and one Republican. This does not fit well with your thesis.
Interstate banking was allowed through the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking Act of 1994, which was passed well after the S&L Crisis. Interstate banking had nothing to do with the S&L Crisis. And, coincidentally, Riegle and Neal were Democrats. Consider your premise.
[Personally I have no issues with National Banks, per se. I just think they should have much higher capital requirements and their banking activities should be restricted – that is, they should be viewed much like utilities, with (modest) returns on capital to match.]
[quote=patb]
it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…[/quote]
Notwithstanding the above, the Senate Banking Committee, which is where all of the action is, has historically been roughly equally split between Republicans and Democrats. Right now, there are 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans on the committee. Again, check your premise.
[quote=patb]
One party screwed the pooch fiscally.[/quote]
Both parties have done plenty of pooch screwing on the fiscal front. I hesitate to blame one more than the other, frankly. The only real argument between the two – outside of the predictable rhetoric, that is – is where the money goes – that is, whose ox is being gored.
