• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I support allowing the BRC to separate Commercial and Investment Banking but do not want to cause too much upheaval to existing financial firms by imposing this regulation that will force many to completely restructure their operations and may cause a loss of confidence. First we must reestablish a regulatory agency over banking and then we may examine ways to further increase the stability of the system after more basic regulation is established.
 
Last edited:
My father told me he would strangle me if I supported this banking proposal; I believe him... and, considering Governor Harrison's opposition (and his experience as a banker), I will oppose such legislation.

General Richard Jarvis
 
I agree with the BRC and propose to be it's "head"
 
I'll put the BSSA and Stewart Act to a vote now, as whether or not they pass now plays a central role to how the Depression unfolds in America and the wider world.

The Banking Safety and Stability Act of 1929

The Banking Safety and Stability Act of 1929​
Article I
A Banking Regulatory Commission (BRC) will be established.

Article II
The BRC shall provide for a secure financial system by regulating the activities of Banks, Securities dealers and lenders to ensure that such firms are not engaging in reckless risktaking that puts depositors, investors and the economy at undue risk.

Article III
The BRC shall enforce restrictions against fraud in the financial sector and regulate securities sold to the public.

Article IV
The BRC shall establish a Deposit Insurance System.​

The Stewart Act

The Stewart War Debt Act

Article I
Among those European Nations who are indebted to us due to expenses incurred during The Great War, payment will be allowed in the form of finished goods and the raw resources of Petroleum and Rubber. This shall serve the function of giving said European powers an alternate method of paying thier debts and shall flood our American Markets with cheap goods allowing the continuity of the high standards of living in our nation.

Article II
Any European Nation willing to pay its debts in Gold or Silver speice with hard value shall be allowed to repay it for 75 cents on every dollar owed and the debt will be considered settled.

Article III
In the case of colonial powers, they shall be allowed to lease berths in thier Naval Bases to the United States at rates to be negotiated depending on the quality and strategic importance of the bases in question.

Article IV
The United States affirms is unwillingness to forgive the debts of the European powers without payment. This bill merely recognizes the unlikelyness of German war reparations being paid given the socio-economic situation in Central Europe.​
 
Speaking on behalf of myself, accountants and the treasury, I vote yes to both bills.

The former shall mitigate domestic fall out and the latter will lessen the oncoming European crisis without preventing the treasury from being able to continue to spend on important programmes.
 
I would like to congratulate President-elect Ryan, even though I don't agree with his stance on the Jim Crow laws due to the fact I don't think the South is ready for such major social changes.

- Governor C. Blancharde
 
Speaking on behalf of myself, accountants not employed by the District of Columbia, my former colleagues in banking, and undoubtedly many of the war-era Treasury's employees, I vote no on the BSSA. While banking does need to become more stable and accountable, it must be eased into doing it, lest we tempt the devil of downturn with legislation this rash.

I abstain on the Stewart Debt Act as, while I agree with the majority of the bill, I cannot in good conscience agree that the war debt of our allies will never be forgiven, even as Germany, Austria and Russia escaped having to pay the debt they owe the world for their part in the Great War.

- John F. Harrison, Governor of New York
 
The Banking Safety and Stability Act of 1929: No

The Stewart Act: Yes
 
While it's a shame I have not been asked to serve my country in government, considering Ryan's dislike of me I find myself not surprised. However his government proves very promising. And I vote yes to both acts.
 
I just realized something while consulting atomicsoda on his anti-Depression actions.

Is everybody aware of the massive difference between the current US Banking System and the one that existed circa 1929 (both OTL and TTL), or should I give a rundown?
 
((Certainly would be nice to know; rundown away.))
 
Okay then.

In the pre-Depression banking system, there's no such thing as "too big to fail" banks. There are some larger, nation-wide banks like J.P.Morgan & Co., but 80-85% of American money in banks is still in tiny local banks. This is one of the main reasons regulation and control have shied away from banking so far. It's a godawful mess, where the Federal Reserve and the three "big banks" of the US (J.P.Morgan & Co., Bank of the Americas and Citibank), despite theoretically being able to act as saviors and "lenders of last resort" to the system, are in actual fact, only in the proper and necessary level of communication with maybe a third of the banks in the nation. It's a system where, if anything goes wrong, and there is a nation-wide run on banks, two-thirds of financial institutions are, to all extents and purposes, defenseless from the threat of collapse, isolated from the federal government. To fix this, either that two-thirds must collapse and wither away, giving their market share to the one-third that is under the umbrella of the Fed and Big Three, or the Federal government must extend its hand into the realm of banking in a regulatory operation of unforeseen magnitude.
 
((Well, neither of those solutions sound all that pleasant...

On a completely unrelated note, I found that by 1924, we've had two people reach over 100 million votes in the elections they participated in; President Joseph P. Jarvis in his various runs for president and VP at 124.75 million votes and Vice President Simon Ritter (112.02 M) as of 1924 (it'll be at -roughly- 145-150 M come this election); Ritter also holds the record of most VP runs; 5 as of 1928 (with our own T.H. Terrance leading in Presidential runs with 4). And the good soon-to-be-former Vice President is the longest serving VP, and I believe third to serve under multiple presidents.

Just some food for thought...))
 
Last edited:
((Perhaps there is a way out of this riddle; could we not encourage what would be in effect mergers of banks in regions with tax incentives - eg give tax credits to groups of 10 or 20 banks that agree to form a kind of banking cooperative or alliance where funds are shared... I know it sounds like a long shot, but there must be some way of avoiding that riddle before its too late!))
 
((Perhaps there is a way out of this riddle; could we not encourage what would be in effect mergers of banks in regions with tax incentives - eg give tax credits to groups of 10 or 20 banks that agree to form a kind of banking cooperative or alliance where funds are shared... I know it sounds like a long shot, but there must be some way of avoiding that riddle before its too late!))

((That could work, but then we could create these huge banking conglomerates that we'd probably have to break up down the line... though that sounds a lot better than more government control or a handfull of really powerful banks...))
 
The Banking Safety and Stability Act of 1929: No

The Stewart Act: Yes
 
In the efforts to ensure the banking system is secure as we see Europe on the brink of economic collapse, I am proposing the Banking Security Act for examination by this house:

----

The Banking Security Act, 1929

Article I
Banking Alliances shall be encouraged.
Article II
Each Alliance shall:
Section I
Be groups of 5 or more banks.
Section II
Have a sum capital of equal to or over $2 million.
Section III
Consolidate their accounts and share both funds and liabilities.
Section IV
Submit to the rules of the Federal Reserve.
Article III
Each Alliance will recieve:
Section I
A tax credit equal to one fifth of their net tax payments.
Section II
Federal loans to ensure liquidity of capital.

----

((Firstly, I'm unsure of whether this is a practical suggestion, so I'd like feedback on whether you lot think this sort of idea is achievable, desirable etc. Secondly, are the figures realistic? ($2m?) Thirdly, I'm unsure as to the current state of control the Fed has, so I don't really know what article 2, section 4 would mean in reality, but I put it in anyway to act as some form of communication between the Fed and the banks...))
 
((It's practical-ish, in a situation where the Federal Government is already majorly involved in banking and the Fed is as much an institution in reality as it is in theory. Right now, we're in a situation where the Fed has, in actuality, done close to nothing since it was founded thanks to being apparently unnecessary due to the boom, and not wanting to act because any act was likely to launch a torrent of attacks by a president who was as anti-fed as they come (Jarvis). In reality, it's an untested institution that has only an on-paper distinction as a Central Bank of sorts. They essentially haven't even printed a single Federal Reserve Note since 1917. As paper a tiger as they come.

The other, bigger thing is this: You should be happy you have one banking bill being put to a vote. There is absolutely no in-story reason for the sudden increase in will to shore up the banking system. This entire flurry of legislation is based on two things that rest on the role-play aspect being put on the back burner a bit; firstly the knowledge that a downturn is on the way, which realistically no one would have, especially in a situation where the US has had one recession since the civil war. That doesn't really speak to there being a noticeable cycle in the US economy. Secondly, the fact that we, being from the 21st Century, see this banking system as abnormal and dangerous, when all your characters would in fact consider it the norm, and the Big Three and Fed to be the anomalies.

In other words; the BSSA is as far as pre-GD banking regulation can go. In-story, all the NPC characters are seeing is your characters suddenly, for no apparent reason, going crazy about reforming and regulating a banking system that has worked fine since time immemorial and continues to do so. I hope you can see why this means that the BSSA is the only regulation being considered by Congress, and even that as mostly a courtesy to the incoming President)).