Wall Street Is Too Big to Regulate
THE Barclays interest-rate scandal, HSBCs openness to money laundering by Mexican drug traffickers, the epic blunders at JPMorgan Chase at this point, four years after Wall Street wrecked the global economy, does anyone really believe we can regulate the big banks? And if we broke them up, would they really stay broken up?
Most liberals in Washington President Obama included keep hoping the banks can be more tightly controlled but otherwise left as is. Thats the theory behind the two-year-old Dodd-Frank law, which Republicans and Wall Street are still working to eviscerate.
Some economists in and around the University of Chicago, who founded the modern conservative tradition, had a surprisingly different take: When it comes to the really big fish in the economic pond, some felt, the only way to preserve competition was to nationalize the largest ones, which defied regulation.
This notion seems counterintuitive: after all, the schools founders provided the intellectual framework for the laissez-faire turn against market regulation over the last half-century. But for them, bigness and competition could easily become mutually exclusive. One of the most important Chicago School leaders, Henry C. Simons, judged in 1934 that the corporation is simply running away with our economic (and political) system.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/opinion/banks-that-are-too-big-to-regulate-should-be-nationalized.html?_r=1&hp