Den stora danska vänsterliberala dagstidningen i Köpenhamn, Information, har gått ut stort till stöd för för Glass-Steagall. De ger total kredd till LaRoucherörelsens Tom Gillesbergs kampanj och citerar en rad ledande ekonomer.
Under en stor bild på den oberoende kandidaten Tom Gillesbergs valaffisch skriver de:
"Glass-Steagall eller kaos!" Løsgængeren Tom Gillesberg skabte med sine valgplakater en del undren på de københavnske gader under valgkampen. For hvad er Glass-Steagall egentlig? Det vidste kun de færreste, og i kombination med plakatens skarpe farver og overnaturlige udtryk blev Tom Gillesbergs budskab næppe taget seriøst af ret mange. Men Glass-Steagall er alt andet end galskab, mener såvel danske som amerikanske økonomer.
Läs artikeln här
För den som har problem med danskan följer ett sammandrag på engelska nedan.
Danish Schiller Institute receives full support for Glass Steagall in article in the Danish daily Information
COPENHAGEN, Sept. 18 - On October 14, under the headline, "Division of the banks or chaos!," referring to the prominently-pictured recent election poster of Tom Gillesberg from The Friends of the Schiller Institute, the online version of the nationwide newspaper, Information, has a full-page article in support of Glass Steagall (GS) by Kristian Villesen (see: www.information.dk/282179). The kicker is:
"Whereas most Copenhageners laughed a little at the ´Glass-Steagall or Chaos` election poster, it is really not a laughing matter. Behind this mystical word hides an economic instrument, which would provide for stability, and prevent future banking crashes, says both Danish and American economic experts. Up till recently it was effective in the USA."
After stating that the "Glass Steagall - or chaos!" poster provoked the question, "What is GS," the article carries interviews with three well-known Danish economists, three American economists, and a spokesman for the Danish bank association. All three Danish economists argue for Glass Steagall, as well as two of the Americans. The third is for a partial GS, and the bank spokesman is opposed.
One of the economists brings up the movement for GS in Switzerland and Great Britain, and another points out the increasing support in the US, including from the Occupy Wall Street movement.
The article is a reflection of the tremendous debate the small forces of the SI in Denmark have created, and on Tuesday, the battle for GS will escalate, when 55,000 copies of a new SI campaign newspaper on the subject are printed.
Some quotes from the economists interviewed in the Information article follow:
"There are sound economic reasons to introduce a Glass-Steagall-like law" says economics professor at RUC (Roskilde University) Jesper Jespersen. ..."The last 3-4 years of economic development are an irreversible expression of a lack of regulation". [The normal banking activity] is very important for a society and therefore, you cannot leave it up to private initiative, which carries other parameters to optimize."
Johannes Raaballe Professor of Aarhus: "This is very reasonable."... "Danske Bank, for example, has lost a lot of money through their activities in Ireland. If you were to divide the banks, you could say, sorry, but this part of the company will have to be shut down."...
In England and Switzerland they're saying that one part of the banking sector should be supported and guarantied, but the investment part of banking is not systemically important and if it goes down, it shouldn't receive a cent. Just like normal companies don't receive any state funds if they get into trouble" says Raaballe.
Finn Østrup, Professor of Finance, Copenhagen Business School, explains the principle: "With GS we extract the speculative part. We remove the unnecessary, so only the necessary remains."
As lecturer in law of financing at Cornell Law School, NY, Charles K. Whitehead formulates it in the following way:" The fundamental idea was to keep banks banking, and nothing else."
... Charles Geisst, Prof. of financing, Manhattan College New York: "A GS-law would probably abolish the need for expensive bank bailout packages, because it outlaws the activities which are typically causing the banks to get into trouble."
"This model worked well, all the way up until 1999. The two types of banks were separated. The savings of the citizens were separated from the investment part, and this gave the banks a safer economic basis" Today, there is a discussion to revive the GS law in the USA, for example the Occupy Wall Street movement which, if it develops, could come to resemble the protests of the 30´s....
Professor of economic ethics of Stern School of Business at University of NY John Tepper Marlin, "The financial sector has a strong lobby in Washington," says John Tepper Marlin, a strong advocate of GS.
However, he sees hope in the Occupy Wall Street movement. "If we compare the crash of 1929 with the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008, then the beginning of 1933 (when GS was introduced following public protests) can be compared to the beginning of 2012. If Occupy Wall Street develops, we will see Washington pushing through stronger laws", he says.