The economic recession of 2008 was caused by many things. One of the factors that stood out was irresponsible decisions on the part of the big banks. Their loan system was causing the housing crisis by lending money to people who had no means to pay it back. Banks also started making more risky decisions because of their gargantuan size, thinking that they could get away with anything. However, these decisions eventually led to catastrophe. Lehman Brothers, one of the largest banks of the time and an economic dominator, collapsed, and led the economy into recession. The middle class taxpayers had to bail the banks out. To avoid such a crisis again, we should break up the big banks so that our economy never relies so greatly on a handful of financial institutions.
The power that the banks and financial institutions have obtained means they can frequently dictate policy to the government. In this new form of inverted totalitarianism, with the financial class on top and the political class below them, it will be interesting to see if this much power and influence in one sector of civil society will cause even more social unrest. The banking system as we know it is a long way from done, as both financial and political groupings depend on the status quo for their influence. Even the 2008 crisis did not change the system or even the way it operates. Bottom line is that we need to break up the power the banks hold.
Big banks represent the greatest threat to humanity, physically, morally and spiritually. They accumulate wealth in such a way that they wield unlimited, indeed impervious power. They finance energy exploration that will be the end of all life on earth. They steal from the poor and create instability on such a global and dangerous scale that they should be our number one enemy.
While I will concede that the banking industry needs additional government oversight, breaking the banks is not the way to go about it. Why would the federal government punish any business for being successful? The current "stress testing" that the Treasury Department conducts on the largest banks is an excellent example of the kind to control and regulating the banking industry needs. Regulate "yes," break-up "no!"
Of course not. The big banks of today's economy are keeping interest rates affordable for anyone wanting to buy a home, car etc. Without bigger corporation banks every new family wouldn't have as much of a chance to get into a home. It would also destroy many credit card opportunities and credit to people who can barrow. Big banks are keeping thousands of businesses going. So if you'd like to destroy the economy, and millions of jobs, or at least make jobs as well as self-employment more difficult and less profitable, sure close the big banks. It's a bad idea.
A large company takes succeeding far more seriously when they know that the U.S. Government will not bail them out if they screw up. Giving these companies the incentive to take very risky investments is what put our economy in its current position. The banks should be allowed to fail.
The public seems to prefer big banks; if they didn't they would support smaller banks and this wouldn't even be a topic for debate. Obviously big banks are offering services that the general public prefers. So long as they aren't breaking any laws, there's no reason to interfere. If smaller banks aren't able to compete, then they need to find an angle to make themselves desirable to the public rather than hoping the government will save them from the bigger banks.