Posted on 10/24/2009 3:04:35 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
.... Busting up the banking trusts is essential for the following reasons:
-It eliminates the too-big-to-fail issue, which puts entire economies at risk.
-Excessively large banks destroy democracies, like the United States, through inordinate influence on policy, politicians and regulators.
-Oligopolies and monopolies are economically inefficient and charge excessive fees, earn excessive profits and pay excessive salaries and bonuses.
-Oligopolies and monopolies don't innovate because they don't have to.
-Oligopolies and monopolies are risky because they indulge in groupthink mistakes that are too large for economies and the business community to bear.
-Oligopolies and monopolies fossilize markets by dealing with big entities, cronies, politically connected clients and nepotism.
-Oligopolies and monopolies hurt economies because of overcharging and gouging.
The world's concentrated financial sector has been grabbing more than its fair share of wealth because it has been able to and this must stop.
Between 1989 and 1999, financial fees increased tenfold. Since the 1960s, the financial sector in the United States has more than doubled in size, from 3% of GDP to 7.5% currently.
"This is like looting," said outspoken Boston money manager Jeremy Grantham, whose firm invests US$89-billion in funds. "That 7.5%, that goes to financial fees, is on its way to 10%. This industry can grow to gobble up all the benefits of the real economy if allowed to. It is trying to grab our cash. It's obscene.".....
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
I'm all for capitalism, but at some point, the excesses & abuses become too much.
Did you know that since 1960 the United States Postal Service has kept up with a ten-fold increase in mail volumes, and a 3X increase in addresses and delivery mileage with about a 10% increase in its workforce?
They did that through adroit use of the exact same technology used by the banking industry to merely double in size.
I'm not surprised that "fees" have increased in importance as a source of income for banking enterprises ~ that happened while interest paid on demand deposits dropped like a rock ~ "free checking" had to be paid for somewhere.
Yes, but there are many small banks across the country that are solvent and strong.
"Excesses" is the description of 'government'. Government is NOT (or should not be) about business.
Why shouldn't big businesses and banks fail? Why shouldn't investors lose their investments?
They SHOULD. That's what the financial system is about!
Many years back we watched as big banks started swallowing up the smaller ones. I told my wife then. What happens when thes big bans fail. Smaller banks could fail and few people are harmed, when the big ones go down, many are harmed.
Now we klnow , dont we.?
Pressure? Maybe yes/no. If a bank desired to expand, they were encouraged to provide loans. Who oversaw the regulation of those banking regulations? The same then as now. There are now new thoughts to provide MORE funds to the same that defaulted.
If I had the funds, I'd start a Tar and Feathers index. (before it's regulated)
Much of this bank de-regulation happened under clinton
when he let his buddy and big contributor, hugh mccoll,
a banker from nc write banking bill. stephanapolous helped
facilitate the clintion/mccoll union and also got a sweetheart
mortgage deal for himself in the process.
They became too much. Had nature taken its course, the problem of "too big" would have been solved on its own. Instead, government intervened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.