Under Republican leadership, our Nation tilted the economic playing field in favor of big banks – then took the referees off the field. Now we have the deepest recession in 75 years, mountains of debt, millions of lost jobs, and a housing crisis that is destroying tens of thousands of families.
This is typical of the left — “First, the Republicans did such-and-such, and then so-and-so happened.” No causal connection is shown between the two — and they don’t care. It’s guilt by implication.
BTW, do those big banks include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? They, and the expanded Community Reinvestment Act, set up the house of cards that started the recession.
Five megabanks still control 75% of all lending in America. They are still Too-Big-To-Fail.
Why is that? What would be so terrible about the collapse of these banks? If a large bank were, instead, a hundred smaller banks that all collapsed, what would be the difference? If we have to bail out one big bank, would we not have to bail out the hundred smaller ones?
Don’t get me wrong, we still need big banks to serve global networks of huge corporations – but our concentration of trillion dollar banks places national financial security at risk.
Not to my way of thinking. The global economy is a systemic risk. Previous bank collapses occurred with banks both big and small. A run on a hundred small banks is no different than a run on one huge one. Being systemic risk, not local risk, spreading the risk does not reduce it.
We learned this lesson the hard way. To manage risk we need greater involvement by small banks.
We can help small banks compete with the megabanks by giving them an edge in the federal funds rate and the overnight discount rate. This will help the 8500 other banks in America serve a larger part of our economy.
Once again, when the government gives something to one group, it must take it from another. Why do the large banks have a competitive advantage over the small ones, if they are both getting the same federal funds rate and overnight discount rate? Because the large banks are more efficient. They do not have a hundred presidents, but one who is paid a tenth of what those hundred would make. And they get the best presidents, not a hundred middling ones.
So, naturally, the government solution will be to tax the big banks. Who, ultimately, will pay the tax? The customers. That means you and me.