On liquidity and lending to small and medium-sized businesses.>> So let me get this straight. You're saying that you are in favor of Glass–Steagall which breaks apart the two arms of banking. Regular banking and commercial banking. 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.>> I've never said we're in favor of breaking up the banks and separating. If we had, it would've been very simple.>> Okay, let me try it one more time.
We're gonna run out of time here, but I have to try this 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?>> You know what, I'd be more than happy to come see you and follow up and talk about this.
>> Just tell me what it means.>> Had we, we never, came out->> Just tell me what it means to->> Saying we should separate the banks from investment.>> Tell me what 21st century Glass-Steagall means, if it doesn't mean breaking apart those two functions. It's an easy question,-
>> It's actually->> Or an impossible question.>> It's actually a complicated question,->> I'll bet.>> Because there's many aspects of it, okay? The simple answer, which we don't support, is breaking up banks from 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, and I'd be happy to follow up and listen to you.>> This is just bizarre. The idea that you can say we are in favor of Glass- Steagall, but not breaking up the big banks. Thank you.>> We never said we were in favor of Glass-Steagall.
We said we were in favor of a 21st century Glass-Steagall. It couldn't be clearer.