This was the first time that a Trump administration official has said that in its view a 21st century Glass-Steagall would not require the separation of commercial banks and investment banks.
.. The hearing quickly became heated, with Warren become increasingly annoyed with Mnuchin’s answers.
“There are aspects of Glass-Steagall that you support but not breaking up the banks and separating commercial banking from investment banking? What do you think Glass-Steagall was if that’s not right at the heart of it?” Warren asked.
“I’m well aware of what Glass-Steagall was,” Mnuchin said.
“This is like something straight out of George Orwell,” Warren said.
Mnuchin argued that the purpose of Glass-Steagall was to avoid conflicts of interests that can arise when banks act as brokers and securities dealers as well as lenders and deposit takers.
.. “This is just bizarre, the idea that you could say we are in favor of Glass-Steagall but not breaking up the banks,” a clearly frustrated Warren said.
.. Dealbreaker, widely-read by Wall Street’s younger set, described Mnuchin’s answers as having “the cosmic incomprehensibility of a Buddhist koan.”