Oh come on. Did the regulation in the financial system protect "the customer" against a massive loss of jobs and against having to subsidize a bailout of the entire industry in 2008? Did it protect people from banks who were betting against them(Goldman Sachs.)?
I have news for you all of these exotic and toxic investment vehicles that these investment banks cook up, largely because a previous loophole was close are essentially high flying risky startups inside the context of the bank.
Deposits and retirements savings did not survive in the last financial meltdown and this had nothing to do with fintech, these were white-glove investment houses. So yeah people do want protection, protection against this established racket. The established racket is the largest offender.
>Oh come on. Did the regulation in the financial system protect "the customer"
Yes it did. Nobody lost money in their savings or current accounts in commercial banks (Except Iceland)
What happened in the stock market was different but the core of the FSA/FCA is about protecting customer's money which they did. (See how they were able to ensure none of Northern Rock's customers lost money in the UK).
Maybe people didn't lose their savings in the last meltdown but can I remind you how maybe people have lost a significant amount of their savings overnight by their governments and the bad monetary policies those governments pursued? The devaluation overnight of the Argentine Peso(where incidentally Bitcoin is very popular), the devaluation of the Thai Baht. These are all incidents where people went to bed and woke up much poorer than they were the day before. How about the unsound policies of Zimbabwe(do a google search for a Zimbabwe 100 Trillion dollar bill) and Venezuela that leads to devastating inflation? These were the result of politics and monetary policies that were enacted in the pursuit of those politics. Crypto currencies turn all of this interventionism on it's head.
Repeal of the Glass-Stegal Act was not the cause of the 2008 crisis! Also Glass-Stegal was never regulation to protect individuals. It had nothing to do with customers. Glass-Stegal did allow big banks to get much bigger but it was not about protecting individuals. Glass-Stegal forbid commercial bank from becoming investment banks. The crisis in 2008 was caused by subprime lending, complicit ratings agencies and a derivatives market that speculated against those loans. Glass-Stegal would not have prevented this! I wish people would stop propagating this misinformation. The only reason its relevant to the crisis is because it allowed banks to become "too big to fail", not because it would have prevented banks the players from engaging in reprehensible behavior.
I wasn't referring to Glass-Stegal but rather the collusion between the the banks and the ratings agency, or banks selling products to investors and then betting against them.
Glass-Stegal would however further my point, its the regulatory capture in the financial industry that allowed that to happen, and by that I mean appointing an investment banking executive from Wall Street to head the Federal Reserve.
I have news for you all of these exotic and toxic investment vehicles that these investment banks cook up, largely because a previous loophole was close are essentially high flying risky startups inside the context of the bank.
Deposits and retirements savings did not survive in the last financial meltdown and this had nothing to do with fintech, these were white-glove investment houses. So yeah people do want protection, protection against this established racket. The established racket is the largest offender.