>>The trouble with that argument is that most of the world does not have and never has needed a Glass-Steagall act. Actually that was one of the justifications for dropping it. Take this to its natural conclusion and it's still a strike against US bankers who apparently need extra supervision or they trash the place.
>
>Well, don't forget the pressure from the government to finance the 'risky' mortgages. That's at the heart of the problem. I've posted those links before. Started with Clinton and Bush made it even worse.

Instead of doing it the classical Henry Ford way, the way it was done for the previous 150 years or longer, of raising all boats gradually, the bankers maneuvered the legislators into heavy deregulation, or simply went inventing new stuff which wasn't regulated yet. Which meant they were getting richer, along with the rest at the top, at expense of pretty much everybody else. From material production, the focus shifted to services and then to mainly financial services. They were making shiploads of money on the people whose salaries were falling (measured by purchasing power) but were nudged into consumption on more and more loans. Then their jobs started vanishing too, because, guess what, their employers had to make enough profit to pay their loans and still look nice on Walmart Street.

And now these jobless people end up paying for all of it, endlessly.