We really need to point out at the beginning that Steve Mnuchin is a lying piece of billionaire trash who would cut off his own mother's nursing home bills if it would earn him a tax cut. He's already arguing for "quantitative easing," i.e. voodoo economics, to generate the talking point that massive tax cuts for the rich "pay for themselves." Yeah, he's that kind of liar.
So when he goes up against Senator Elizabeth Warren to tell her yes, sure, he wants a "Glass-Stegall for the 21st Century" only it shouldn't do one damn thing that the original Glass-Stegall did, i.e. separate mortgage banking from Wall Street banking, Elizabeth Warren takes out her rolling pin and softens up that butter like a pro:
Transcript via Vanity Fair:
Warren: I still haven’t heard the answer to my question; what do you think Glass-Stegall was if not separating commercial banking from investment banking, from ordinary banking?
Mnuchin: Again, the fundamental part of Glass-Stegall was, as you just outlined, it was separation of investment banking from commercial banking because people were concerned about conflicts.
Warren: And how do you separate without breaking up the big banks that have integrated these two things?
Mnuchin: Again, the integration of commercial banking and investment banking has gone on for a long time, that’s not what caused the financial crisis, and if we did go back to a full separation, you would have an enormous impact on liquidity and lending.
Warren: So let me get this straight. You’re saying you’re in favor of Glass-Steagall, which breaks apart the two arms of the banks, except you don’t want to break apart the two parts of banking. This is like something straight out of George Orwell. You’re saying simultaneously you’re in favor of breaking up the banks— that’s what Glass-Steagall is—
Mnuchin: I never said we were in favor of breaking up the banks. If we had been, it would have been very simple .
Warren: Let me try one more time—what does it mean to be in favor of 21st-century Glass-Steagall if it does not mean breaking apart these two functions in banking?
Mnuchin: I’d be more than happy to come see you and follow up—
Warren: Just tell me what it means. Tell me what 21st-century Glass-Steagall means if it doesn’t mean breaking up those two parts. It’s an easy question.
Mnuchin: It’s actually a complicated question—
Warren: I’ll bet.
Mnuchin: There are many aspects of it. The simple answer is we don’t support breaking up commercial and investment banks. We think that would be a huge mistake, but, again, I’m more than happy to listen to your ideas on it, you obviously have strong views.
Warren: This is just bizarre. The idea that you can say we’re in favor of Glass-Steagall but not in breaking up the banks.
Mnuchin: We never said we were in favor of Glass-Steagall, we said we were in favor of a 21st-century Glass-Steagall. We couldn’t be clearer.
Warren: Thank you . . . this is crazy.
Following Mnuchin's logic, I can't wait for the Trump Organization (tm) to come up with a 21st Century luxury hotel without beds or toilets. Think of the savings!