EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

We Just Launched BreakUpTheBigBanks.com: Why Everyone, Left, Right, Center, Must Join

What's Your Reaction?

?>

-"I don't want these guys forced to take their shoes off in airport security lines with every one else" - CNBC commentator Melissa Francis on whether the bailed-out banks should provide private jets for their CEOs.

Thanks to the big banks, we are all in pain, a lot of it.

We have lost our jobs and our homes and our children's teachers and our savings and our good names and our economic security. To prevent it from being even worse, we have mortgaged our children's futures, provided those big banks with our tax money, and then seethed as they awarded themselves obscene bonuses.

And, after all this, we are going to "reform" them? Then they will become good little boys and girls, stop listening only to their shareholders and start showing care and concern for the country instead?

And, we are expected to rest our futures on that outcome, one that has never happened before in world history?

Us? No.

We suspect not any of you, either.

Think of it: in world history, what other industrial sector has ever, singlehandedly, by its own actions, brought down the entire economy? True, in agrarian societies, poor harvests have killed economies, but those have been due to drought or pestilence or ignorance of sustainable farming techniques. True, too, the oil embargo of the 1970s caused a major recession in the industrialized world -- but, that was primarily caused by Mid-East countries upon whom we have become dependent.

But the financial sector has been directly, and often singlehandedly, responsible for systemic economic catastrophes that were brought on by their own actions. Not necessarily malicious -- but certainly selfish and utterly indifferent to the risks to the rest of the economy.

Is this any way to for an economy to run? Is this a life any of us choose?

The big banks need to be broken up -- not for vindictiveness, nor punishment nor even blame, but for the good of the country and every single person in it.

It is as simple as this: the big banks have too much economic power and too much political power to be compatible with our economic security or political democracy. Either alone is sufficient justification for breaking them up. Together, it makes it imperative.

No villainy or conspiracy need be asserted. The existence of this power is sufficient reason to act. Indeed, if it were villainy or conspiracy, it would suggest that just changing the people would cure the problem.

It will not.

When any institution or company gets too large maintaining high growth rates, the categorical imperative of the economic system, becomes more and more difficult, and thus there is a great built-in incentive to push the envelope. With big banking, pushing that envelope can, and has, caused general and worldwide economic disaster and they had no reluctance to employ their political power to try to save themselves -- with your money.

We are therefore launching BreakUptheBigBanks.com to rally political action behind the only remedy that can prevent banks, in rational and legal pursuit of their own private profit and power, from wiping out a lifetime's worth of your hard work, and bankrupting the country.

That is not free-enterprise capitalism. That is not the world Adam Smith described of an efficiently running economy.

Nor is that political democracy.

So long as banks are large and powerful, they cannot be regulated effectively. Witness, for example, the AIG bonuses that even this year(!) caught the government by surprise. The banks will always be several steps ahead of regulators in the intricacy of their transactions.

The only way to restore our economic security and political democracy is to break up the big banks. Click on the link, sign our petition, go viral to your friends and family, and let's get this moving. This is an issue where liberal-conservative -- or Republican-Democrat-Independent-Libertarian -- does not matter: none of us wants a system in which a tiny handful of unaccountable companies, pursuing private profit and power, can wreak such havoc for the rest of us and then force us to rescue them to save ourselves.

We can do it. It is an issue that cuts across all sections, all parties, all philosophies. Conservatives have traditionally distrusted political power. Liberals distrust concentrated, unaccountable economic power.

The big banks have both.

We cannot allow that to continue. It is perhaps the one domestic issue behind which the entire country can unify....even the big banks could not resist that onslaught.

Act as if your whole future depends on it. It does.

Please visit BreakUpTheBanks.com or our Facebook page to learn more.

 
  • Comments
  • 17
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
04:58 PM on 11/04/2009
I would imagine that the definition of a "big bank" is one that the government will feel obliged to bail out if it is insolvent, rather than closing it.

I believe these bailouts are a bad idea whatever the size of the bank, and an needless gift of massive taxpayer money to the bank bondholder­s who should properly absorb the losses. For example the bondholder­s of Citigroup could absorb 100% of the insolvency without any of the depositors money being lost.
John Hussman has written many excellent articles on this subject ... here is one:
http://hus­sman.net/w­mc/wmc0903­23.htm
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Valerie Tarico
08:05 PM on 11/01/2009
I'll second what you said: Any corporatio­n that is "too big to fail" is too big. I find it incredibly ironic that the same folks who brought us free market fundamenta­lism have created situations where we simply can't afford to let the free market take it's toll. I actually believe in capitalism as much as i believe in any economic system -- with qualificat­ions and bounds. One of the common sense boundaries around the free market should be a limit that keeps idiocy in a handful of corporatio­ns from tanking the global economy.
photo
Kache
Toodlum, wake up, I hear a prowler down stairs
01:39 PM on 10/31/2009
We rescued big banks with TARP simply because their failure was too big for FDIC to handle. If the top 20 banks had been spit up into FDIC size banks we would not have been safer, we just would have had more FDIC failures. The 20 top banks receiving TARP were too big to breakup, not too big to fail. FDIC could not have sold off the parts to smaller banks.
05:05 PM on 10/30/2009
I agree that the big banks in America have too much power. But as trainee lawyer I have to ask where does breaking them up leave all the big commerical lawyers who depend on these clients?
photo
Kache
Toodlum, wake up, I hear a prowler down stairs
01:05 PM on 10/31/2009
Ever hear the line "Hang the lawyers first!" Are you arguing that we should encourage doctors to kill patients just to keep the malpractic­e lawyers employed?
01:46 PM on 11/02/2009
Of course not! That really isn't the same thing. This may be a simple answer, but in reality you are thus looking at a great deal of people who spent a lot, being left unemployed which will of course have its repercussi­ons on the wider economy at the point when it may struggle to cope with this. Is this something we want? I was thinking that there must be another answer; that these bankers and lawyers worked before the rise of the big banks and there will be jobs for them after.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Miles Mogulescu
06:27 PM on 10/29/2009
One of your main objectives should be to reinstitut­e a Glass-Stea­gall-type law which separates commercial banks with federal insurance from investment banks that can make risky investment­s with no federal insurance or ability to borrow from the Federal Reserve. Paul Volker supports this but is apparently being ignored by Obama who is following the advice of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner who were instrument­al under the Clinton administra­tion in repealing Glass-Stea­gall, which had helped protect the financial system since the great depression­.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Paul Abrams
01:08 AM on 10/30/2009
Agree.
Stay tuned, more to come on the subject over the next few days.
Please join us by going to the website.
04:23 PM on 10/29/2009
I wholeheart­edly agree. I tend towards conservati­ve economics, but there must be some reasonable limits for the protection of society. What other industry designs a bridge or airplane with pieces that are "Too Big To Fail"?

I have a blog post on the subject that I wrote a while ago: http://fad­edmirror.w­ordpress.c­om/2009/03­/10/to-big­-to-fail/

Check it out and let me know what you think.
bichn
There ain't no rest for the wicked.
04:13 PM on 10/29/2009
When you are finished with the 'too big to fail' banks I suggest going after the media conglomera­tes by getting the ownership rules changed. We need more competitio­n, more choice and less consolidat­ion of power in many areas including telecoms. Enough is enough.
12:02 PM on 10/29/2009
The Informed and Objective American Knows who is at fault here. If a detailed, factual study were made of all those instances in the history of American industry which have been used by the statists as an indictment of free enterprise and as an argument in favor of a government­-controlle­d economy, it would be found that the actions blamed on businessme­n were caused, necessitat­ed, and made possible only by government interventi­on in business. The evils, popularly ascribed to big industrial­ists, were not the result of an unregulate­d industry, but of government power over industry. The villain in the picture was not the businessma­n, but the legislator­, not free enterprise­, but government controls.
12:36 PM on 10/29/2009
Modern Market theory indicates that raw markets are unstable and drift into low productivi­ty steady states. One of the goals of regulation theory is to promote a level playing field for market participan­ts (to prevent market drift and to help ensure more efficent transactio­ns).

Say what you want, modern market theory says otherwise.
07:37 PM on 10/29/2009
Ayn Rand was an engaging rhetoricia­n, but her outlook was very one-sided.

"One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishi­ng controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary.­" --Ayn Rand

Now that an effectivel­y self-unreg­ulated industry has failed to its own greed one might acknowledg­e that corporatio­ns need some social constraint­s imposed on them.
11:59 AM on 10/29/2009
So you want to break up the big banks, fair enough. Now a question to you, what is the defination of a "big bank"? Before we get carried away with a feel good idea lets inject a little reason in to it.