background preloader

Glass–Steagall Legislation

Glass–Steagall Legislation
The term Glass–Steagall Act usually refers to four provisions of the U.S. Banking Act of 1933 that limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations within commercial banks and securities firms.[1] Congressional efforts to “repeal the Glass–Steagall Act” referred to those four provisions (and then usually to only the two provisions that restricted affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms).[2] Those efforts culminated in the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), which repealed the two provisions restricting affiliations between banks and securities firms.[3] [edit] The sponsors of both the Banking Act of 1933 and the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 were southern Democrats: Senator Carter Glass of Virginia (who in 1932 had been in the House, Secretary of the Treasury, or in the Senate, for the preceding 30 years), and Representative Henry B. Steagall of Alabama (who had been in the House for the preceding 17 years). Legislative history of the Glass–Steagall Act[edit] Related:  Great DepressionEconomy

Richest 1% may own half of global wealth by 2016 The combined wealth of the world's richest 1 percent could overtake that of the other 99 percent by 2016 , according to a report by Oxfam published Monday, as billionaires, politicians and business leaders gather in Davos for the annual World Economic Forum. In a study called "Wealth: Having it all and wanting more." the international charity warned that a sharp rise in inequality was holding back the fight against global poverty at a time when 1 in 9 people do not have enough to eat and more than a billion people live on less than $1.25 a day. © Provided by CNBC Of the remaining 52 percent of global wealth in 2014 , about 46 percent was owned by the rest of the richest fifth of the world's population. The other 80 percent of the world share d around 5.5 percent, according to Oxfam. Rising inequality has moved into the spotlight in recent years amid concerns that living standards have been hit by slow economic recovery in the wake of the global financial crisis.

Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111–203, H.R. 4173; commonly referred to as Dodd-Frank) was signed into federal law by President Barack Obama on July 21, 2010 at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, DC.[1] Passed as a response to the Great Recession, it brought the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United States since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression.[2][3][4] It made changes in the American financial regulatory environment that affect all federal financial regulatory agencies and almost every part of the nation's financial services industry.[5][6] As with other major financial reforms, a variety of critics have attacked the law, some arguing it was not enough to prevent another financial crisis or more "bail outs", and others arguing it went too far and unduly restricted financial institutions.[7] Origins and proposal[edit] Share in GDP of U.S. financial sector since 1860[9] Overview[edit] Duties[edit]

Brown v. Board of Education Educational segregation in the US prior to Brown §Background For much of the sixty years preceding the Brown case, race relations in the U.S. had been dominated by racial segregation. The plaintiffs in Brown asserted that this system of racial separation, while masquerading as providing separate but equal treatment of both white and black Americans, instead perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans. The United States and the Soviet Union were at the height of the Cold War at this time, and US officials, including Supreme Court Justices, were highly aware of the negative effect that segregation and racism had on America's international image. §Case §Filing and arguments In 1951, a class action suit was filed against the Board of Education of the City of Topeka, Kansas in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The suit called for the school district to reverse its policy of racial segregation. §Supreme Court review §Holding

Drought may soon yield mysterious WWII-era bomber beneath Lake Mead Water levels are at their lowest at Nevada's Lake Mead leading the National Park Sevice to allow permits for recreational diving at the site of a downed B-29 bomber. (National Park Service) The drought that has parched much of the southwest may soon yield a mystery that has rested at the bottom of Nevada's Lake Mead for nearly 70 years, a B-29 bomber that went down carrying a top-secret missile defense system that may have actually caused the crash. The B-29 bomber, also known as the "Superfortress" and the same model as the storied Enola Gay and Bockscar, the planes that dropped atomic bombs on Japan, crashed in 1948 as it flew over the giant lake testing a sun-powered missile guidance system. For decades, it lay at a depth of 300 feet in the man-made lake that was formed by construction of the Hoover Dam. "There's a lot of history there. "It would be amazing," Curtis Snaper, of Sin City Scuba in nearby Las Vegas, told

Derivative (finance) Many money managers use derivatives for a variety of purposes, such as hedging — by taking a position in a derivative, losses on portfolio holdings may be minimized or offset by profits on the derivative. Likewise, derivatives can be used to gain quicker and more efficient access to markets; for example, it may be easier and quicker to purchase an S & P 500 futures contract than to invest in the underlying securities.[3] Derivatives are a contract between two parties that specify conditions (especially the dates, resulting values and definitions of the underlying variables, the parties' contractual obligations, and the notional amount) under which payments are to be made between the parties.[4][5] The most common underlying assets include commodities, stocks, bonds, interest rates and currencies, but they can also be other derivatives, which adds another layer of complexity to proper valuation. Still, even these scaled down figures represent huge amounts of money.

Love Canal Love Canal was a neighborhood in Niagara Falls, New York, located in the LaSalle section of the city. It officially covers 36 square blocks in the far southeastern corner of the city, along 99th Street and Read Avenue. Two bodies of water define the northern and southern boundaries of the neighborhood: Bergholtz Creek to the north and the Niagara River one-quarter mile (400 m) to the south. Hooker Chemical sold the site to the Niagara Falls School Board in 1953 for $1, with a deed explicitly detailing the presence of the waste,[1] and including a liability limitation clause about the contamination. Ten years after the incident, New York State Health Department Commissioner David Axelrod stated that Love Canal would long be remembered as a "national symbol of a failure to exercise a sense of concern for future generations Early history[edit] The Love Canal came from the last name of William T. This dumpsite was in operation until 1953. The Love Canal Disaster[edit] Sale of the site[edit]

Congress could soon allow pension plans to cut benefits for current retirees Congress could soon allow the benefits of current retirees to be cut as part of an agreement to address the fiscal distress confronting some of the nation’s 1,400 multi-employer pension plans. Several unions and pension advocates opposing the move, which would be unprecedented, say that permitting financially strapped plans to cut retiree benefits would violate the central promise of traditional pensions: that they would provide a defined benefit for life. “This proposal would devastate retirees and their surviving spouses,” said Karen Friedman, executive vice president of the Pension Rights Center, a nonprofit group. “The proposal would also torpedo basic protections of the federal private pension law . . . that states that once benefits are earned, they can’t be cut back.” Several of the nation’s large multi-employer pension plans are on a course that would leave them insolvent within a decade. In recent weeks, negotiations over the proposal have heated up on Capitol Hill. Michael A.

The Occupation - Erik Tarloff - National Public protest isn't about anything as mundane as ten-point programs and lists of demands A little girl holds a placard during an Occupy Wall Street protest at Times Square in New York / Reuters The lead headline on the front page of Saturday's "Business Day" section of the New York Times: "In Private, Wall St. Bankers Dismiss Protesters as Unsophisticated." Is it possible to imagine a more obnoxious response to the Occupy Wall Street movement? We've seen this sort of thing before, of course: Henry Kissinger regarded the anti-nuclear movement as naive. Which is not to say the movement isn't incoherent, inconsistent, and lacking a clear program. Popular protest isn't about a neat, discrete set of demands, even when it pretends to be. No, public protest isn't about anything as mundane as ten-point programs and lists of demands. Every protester may have his or her own proposed solution.

When Boris Yeltsin went grocery shopping in Clear Lake - The Texican © Houston Chronicle >gallery_thumbnails_show|thetexican-2577-post-3385-g22200|thetexican-2577-post-3385-g22200|0 gallery_thumbnails_show|thetexican-2577-post-3385-g22200|thetexican-2577-post-3385-g22200|0 gallery_overlay_open|thetexican-2577-post-3385-g22200|thetexican-2577-post-3385-g22200|0 gallery_overlay_open_thumbs|thetexican-2577-post-3385-g22200|thetexican-2577-post-3385-g22200|0 © Houston Chronicle 09/16/1989 - Boris Yeltsin and a handful of Soviet companions made an unscheduled 20-minute visit to a Randall's Supermarket after touring the Johnson Space Center. 09/16/1989 - Boris Yeltsin and a handful of Soviet companions made an...unscheduled 20-minute visit to a Randall's Supermarket after touring...the Johnson Space Center. 09/16/1989 - Boris Yeltsin and a handful of Soviet companions made an unscheduled 20-minute visit to a Randall's Supermarket after touring the Johnson Space Center. At JSC, Yeltsin visited mission control and a mock-up of a space station.

Clinton has received $16 million in post-presidency benefits March 7, 2015: Former President Bill Clinton speaks at the Future of Energy session at a university conference sponsored by the Clinton Global Initiative in Coral Gables, Fla. (AP) Former President Bill Clinton has received nearly $16 million in taxpayer funds since leaving the White House, covering everything from his pension to personnel to benefits -- and renewing questions over how much taxpayers really should spend on ex-presidents who make millions after leaving office. A new Politico report and analysis examined the payments since he left office in 2001, and claimed it amounts to more than any other ex-president has received. Meanwhile, Politico points out, Clinton has a personal annual income that beats all the other living former presidents. His $15 million advance -- then a record -- for his 2008 memoir was just a sliver of his earnings. From 2001 to 2014 Clinton has received a roughly $200,000 annual pension (all presidents received the same level of pension in 2014).