When governments around the world had to bail out and take control of all the banks that were failing, some naively thought that one of the problems inherent in that solution was that the banks and financial institutions that were saved fell into that troublesome "too big to fail" category and that something further needed to be done. What morons. Because we're America and we know better, we decided we needed more "too big to fail" financial giants, or at least the same number as before. The dumber countries (read: everywhere) decided they needed less.
Like England, for example.
The British government -- spurred on by European regulators -- is forcing the Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds Banking Group and Northern Rock to sell off parts of their operations. The Europeans are calling for more and smaller banks to increase competition and eliminate the threat posed by banks so large that they must be rescued by taxpayers, no matter how they conducted their business, in order to avoid damaging the global financial system.
The move to downsize some of Britain's largest banks comes as U.S. politicians are debating whether American banks should also be required to shrink. The Obama administration has maintained that large banks should be preserved because they play an important role in the economy and that taxpayers instead should be protected by creating a new system for liquidating large banks that run into problems. But Britain's decision already is being cited by a growing chorus of experts, including prominent bankers and economists, who want the United States to pursue a similar approach.
Pussies! Thank God we're so large that we can probably still counter their nonsense and financially drag them down with us again when the time comes. I think the problem here is that UK banks lost so much money that they just didn't have enough left to make campaign contributions to British lawmakers and hire enough lobbyists to prevent meaningful legislative action. Thankfully we don't have that problem here. Hell, the people in charge of US creation, enforcement, and oversight of these regulations all worked in the financial sector (read: Goldman-Sachs), so they don't even need to be lobbied all that hard.
No no, the clear and intelligent path here is not to do anything to prevent stuff like the complete financial collapse of the world from happening. What we need to do is to make laws to expedite the clean-up and rebuilding period after our next inevitable destruction. Even what laws we do have need to be needlessly weakened for little understandable benefit. If you're out trying to prevent something you're just contributing negative energy, what with your continued whining about what bad things are going to happen and obvious, soon to be bursting bubbles on the horizon. No the best solution is to keep everything the same, but streamline the ascension of the post-financial apocalypse hobo hierarchy.
England...I just don't get why you're doing this. I mean when the next global crisis hits, oh...next year probably, and you're relatively unscathed because of extensive preventative measure you've decided to undertake, well, then you're just fucked. Because when we learn of your relative idyllyc existence (you know: one without the brutal hand to hand combat of the Thunderdome, backbiting shantytown politics, and the daily fights for canned goods) we're just going to pile into our dilapidated boats, arm ourselves with guns and spears, and come subjugate you in a manner befitting our new brutal existence. And your people won't be ready for it...because you made sure they avoided total societal collapse. Now who wishes they didn't break up "too big to fail" banks and pass sensible laws? Not the Hobo Council of Elders or the New Flesh Reaver Militia, that's who. We're going to crush you so hard.
