>>>>Nader was concerned about 'higher ATM fees'.
>>>
>>>Where did you get that? And, privacy issues aren't a concern?
>
>So... this is not a concern at all? I am actually concerned that you see only one minor complaint, while you choose to ignore only all the rest of it.
>
>>>Though, I find Gramm's announcement about "stability" to be a nice ironic touch. The government regulation, if I remember my history and political economy courses well, was introduced to prevent the boom/bust cycles or at least make them easier. I expected deregulation to bring them back, sooner or later.
>>
>>I have no questions about your history and political economy courses.
>
>Good. I was somehow expecting you would have doubts about my sources.
>
>>At the same time, I hope that you understand that banks could sell mortgages before and after this legislation.
>
>The old law prevented "a bank holding company from owning other financial companies". Exactly one of those which were enacted in the thirties to prevent speculation, gets repealed after twenty years and a million dollars worth of lobbying, and under impeachment pressure. This kind of deregulation of finances took only ten years to bear fruit.

This deregulation has nothing to do with current situation. Both Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers did not use Gramm legislation, i.e. they didn't go to retail business. On the contrary, JPMorgan did it (by merging with Chase), and it is currently the stablest bank around.
I also wonder how prohibition to merge saving and investment banks could prevent 'speculation'.