I think she just got a bit carried away by 'teh drama' - to the extent that she spent half her article talking about the quest she had to go through to find it. If she simply wanted the text of the act, it was easy to find in a wide number of pages. I can't help wondering if it was her insistence on finding a digital facsimile copy (of the way it looked back in 1933, with old-fashioned printing and typefaces etc.) that gave her problems.
Then, after all these complaints about how hard it was to find, she says she doesn't want to give the link out in case wall street buys up her archive source...apparently in the belief that Wall Street has the resources to make it disappear from everywhere on the internet, but not to find the one...remaining...copy!!! Call Nicholas Cage - I think we've got the plot for National Treasure #! and the best part is we don't need any expensive sets, it can all take place in front of a desk with a computer!
Look, this is fine stuff from a feature journalism point of view - it adds some spice and excitement to what is a boring and academic subject for most people outside of the finance world. but I don't think it's very informative for the serious reader, and that's why I called BS on it in the first place. The overly-dramatic approach pisses me off - and it's not because I disagree with putting G-S back, I said from the beginning that that or something like it would probably be a good idea. The reason it pisses me off is that it confuses people and results in time wasted with people running about repeating unfounded conspiracy theories, which other people then have to spend time refuting, instead of talking about the actual issue of what banking law should be. As an example, I'm going through the
exact same phenomenon at the moment with a bunch of libertarian business types, over a different part of this same bit of legislation. Let me explain.
There's a provision in Senator Dodd's proposed reform bill for the financial industry that could affect the way people who are well off but not very rich (eg worth more than a million but less than $2 million) would be allowed to invest in small private companies. If the minimum limits to qualify as an investor (as defined by the SEC) change, then some people wouldn't be able to invest in small businesses that they might want to support, and that would be hard for people starting small businesses who were looking for a little bit of money to get off the ground. The business people in question are folk who operate or invest in small software/internet companies, or would like to. they're really worried the Dodd bill will stop a lot of small companies in their tracks by making too hard to find money.
The bill does not actually change the rules, it just tells the SEC to re-examine them (as part of a top-to-bottom approach to reform) and consider whether the monetary thresholds for becoming an investor should be adjusted for inflation, which they haven't been for 30 years. Those rules are actually not specifically set up to deal with little internet businesses; they mainly exist to make sure people don't get fleeced by shady Bernie Madoff types encouraging them to invest in strange financial companies, and to make the rules simple enough for small businesses that they can raise some money without spending a fortune on lawyers (as was the case before these rules were created).
As you can see, it's sort of a complex issue (you should not form an opinion based on this very short summary). And it happens the Senator Dodd's bill acknowledges this and doesn't tell the SEC what to do, it just asks them to re-assess how well (or badly) those rules are working, given that we just had a big financial crisis. It's also true that some of the objections from investors and founders of small businesses are quite sensible - so it's possible the SEC will listen to them and make only minor changes.
BUT - and here's where it ties in with the article in your OP - as more and more people start talking about this on the net, the articles have successively fewer facts, less accuracy, and more and more bullshit drama. The first articles were like 'I don't think this one bit of Senator Dodd's bill is a good idea and here's why' and about two weeks later I'm seeing articles like 'OMG Evil senator Dodd wants to crush small business because he's a SOCIALIST'. I know the people who are writing these articles. They're not part of any big right-wing conspiracy or getting orders from Rupert Murdoch. they're just worried that their business could end up getting hurt by this change and some of them have gotten quite carried away by their worries and become paranoid. they're not lawyers, they find investment regulations confusing and intimidating to begin with, and so their fears get the better of them.
Although nobody intended it this way, the net result is that there's a mini-conspiracy theory floating around the net now that Dodd and the Democrats are out to destroy small business, or nationalize it, or something. It's total BS, but it's based on anxiety and ignorance rather dishonesty and malice. I've spent a lot of time over the last week debunking it and trying to calm down these small business owners and investors so it doesn't turn into a full-size conspiracy theory and end up as the subject of a Glenn Beck show or something like that.
that's why drama pisses me off. When discussion of a serious subject is mixed up with too much drama, people focus on the drama rather than the serious subject, and that is a big, big reason we often get stuck with bad legislation.
There are lots of good factual arguments to put Glass-Steagall back in place, or some similar rule which would re-establish the line between commercial and investment banking. Both kinds of banking services are useful and valuable, but letting them join up at the same company has resulted in a lot of problems. It was a mistake for Clinton to allow it. If we want to get that added back into senator Dodd's fiscal reform bill, and I think we probably should, we need to use fact-based arguments, and not drama about internet conspiracies.
Here's another article that talks about the same issue as your OP, with less drama but a lot more useful information if you really want to learn about the issue:
http://thestrangedeathofliberalamerica.com/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-and-the-current-financial-and-mortgage-crisis-part-two-of-an-indepth-investigative-report.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
