Paul Krugman's column today lays out the basics of the financial reform debate, as he sees it. I found it interesting since I know next nothing about it all.
It seems that the debate is basically force huge banks to break up versus just regulate them better. Why not both?
2 comments:
i'd definitely like to see bank of america broken up into the little pieces it once was. small, local banks invest more in their communities.
It still pisses me off that my money was used to reward failure. The fact that it helped stabilize the economy does not make it any less bitter a pill to swallow. I worked hard for that money, and it was used to prevent failures from failing. I don't think I'll ever get the bad taste out of my mouth. We need to insure that it NEVER happens again. Once was too much. "Too big to fail" should be a synonym for "too big to exist."
Post a Comment