4 ms·
I suppose you just consider it collateral damage that big banks will act just as irresponsibly as before when they are deregulated? The whole premise that dere
by Jweb_Guru 9y ago
I suppose you just consider it collateral damage that big banks will act just as irresponsibly as before when they are deregulated? The whole premise that deregulation is the answer is always that the regulation isn't accomplishing anything useful, but if it really weren't accomplishing anything useful you would think the big banks themselves wouldn't be so eager to get rid of it.
- djschnei 9y agoI was commenting on the lack of competition. Deregulating with the aim of making the barriers to entry into the marketplace smaller. Not deregulation to allow big banks to get away with more... Also, I would guess with more competition from smaller banks, megabanks might actually act more responsibly. [EDIT] but you are kind of proving my point, so thanks! I said "deregulation" so your mind is already made up on the point.
- Jweb_Guru 9y agoOn the contrary, deregulation (of banks and otherwise) is all the rage, and has been for some time (as another commentator noted, many 2008-era regulations are already being repealed). What I don't understand is how the deregulation is going to only improve things for small businesses, not allow large ones to be even more ruthlessly exploitative. Especially since the trend in many other industries (that aren't nearly as tightly regulated as banks) has been for large companies to absorb smaller ones.
- djschnei 9y agoThe deregulation we've seen is deregulation being pushed by people with ties to big banks. Not all regulation (or deregulation) is created equally...