The landmark 1933 banking regulation wasn't just a principled reform. Parts of the bill were influenced, and even written, by a member of the Rockefeller family (owners of Chase) to strategically harm their primary competitor, J.P. Morgan.

Related Insights

The current capital market structure, with its high fees, delays, and limited access, is a direct result of regulations from the 1930s. These laws created layers of intermediaries to enforce trust, baking in complexity and rent-seeking by design. This historical context explains why the system is ripe for disruption by more efficient technologies.

For 15 years, Jamie Dimon has used a prop—a single-page, comically complex flowchart of regulations he calls a "spaghetti chart"—in meetings with regulators and officials. This theatrical tool is part of his successful, long-term campaign against banking regulations.

America's system of nearly 10,000 banks is not a market inefficiency but a direct result of the founding fathers' aversion to centralized, oligopolistic British banks. They deliberately architected a fractured system to prevent the concentration of financial power and to better serve local business people, a principle that still shapes the economy today.

Core components of today's financial landscape, including FDIC insurance, Social Security, and even the 30-year mortgage, were not products of gradual evolution. They were specific policies created rapidly out of the financial ashes of the Great Depression, demonstrating how systemic shocks can accelerate fundamental structural reforms.

Maja Vujinovic posits that Gary Gensler, despite his pro-crypto past, was strategically positioned by banks to slow innovation. This regulatory friction gave traditional financial institutions the necessary time to understand the technology and formulate their own digital asset strategies before competing.

Morgan Stanley's 1935 founding was a direct consequence of the Glass-Steagall Act, which forced a separation between commercial banking (deposits, loans) and investment banking (trading, underwriting). This regulatory mandate created the specialized firms that define the structure of modern finance today.

Rockefeller used his company's stock as a strategic weapon beyond just fundraising. He granted cheap shares to influential bankers to secure favorable loan terms for himself while simultaneously blocking competitors' access to capital, transforming his cap table into a tool for building a network of secret, financially-aligned allies.

Rockefeller created a refiners' association, predicting its failure due to the members' lack of discipline. As its president, he gained full access to his competitors' financials and operations. This allowed him to identify competent operators to acquire as partners and weaker ones to eliminate, all under the guise of cooperation.

Regulatory capture is not an abstract problem. It has tangible negative consequences for everyday consumers, such as the elimination of free checking accounts after the Dodd-Frank Act was passed, or rules preventing physicians from opening new hospitals, which stifles competition and drives up costs.

The Glass-Steagall Act, famed for separating commercial and investment banking, wasn't purely a consumer protection measure. A key motivation was rival banks, like those run by the Rockefellers, lobbying to break up the dominant J.P. Morgan, revealing a backstory of corporate warfare.