Reader comment on: Too Big To Break Up?
Submitted by ben (United States), Jan 28, 2010 21:11
I am not sure whether it is accurate to say that the definition of too big to fail is all those banks that were (or would have been) subjected to the stress tests. Given the very precarious point our economy had been in, the stress tests may have been used on banks that in healthier times would not have been too big to fail, but following Lehman the bar may have been put so low so as to avoid another psychological shock to the market. But even if 100 billion in assets is what Treasury would decide, is there not an argument to be made that this would increase competition and lead to more choice for the consumer? It seems that having four banks control 90% of assets verges on oligopoly - even more so when you consider that in a given location of the country at least one and often two of these four don't have much of a footprint. I know that futureofcapitalism is against all and any regulation, but what about monopolistic behavior? Should government regulate that?
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
Comment on this item