This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016. I'm Caleb Brown.

The reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, a set of Depression-era banking regulations,

is now a part of both the Republican and Democratic Party platforms.

That change reveals just how much the campaign of Bernie Sanders has driven substantive policy proposals for both the Democratic and Republican nominees.

Mark Calabria, director of the Cato Institute's Financial Regulation Studies, explains.

Class Deagle is the term that's often referred to for the Banking Act of 1933, which is a lot of things

including creating the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

But most well known about the 1933 Banking Act was it separated the performance of

investment banking from commercial banking within the same entity,

with the legal term would be subsidiary.

So it's important to keep in mind after that, of course,

you could still do these activities

in different parts of the same holding company,

but you couldn't do them under the same roof.

And the thinking, of course, was we didn't want,

or rather Washington or policymakers,

didn't want banks to use insured deposits.

And of course, it's a reminder that deposits

were uninsured before the 33 Act.

But policy makers didn't want banks to use insured deposits to quote unquote gamble on Wall Street.

And of course I will say as an, a lot of the evidence since then has argued that this was the wrong take at the wrong time, that those banks that did both commercial banking and investment banking did not have the conflicts of interest that we saw were not

contributors to crisis so there's a whole separate debate over whether Glass

...