Nuts: Slate: America Has 6,891 Banks—That’s Way Too Many
Is it even possible, at all, in this world of ‘too big to fail’ banks, that leftist loonies would argue that there are ‘too many’ banks competing with one another? In an area of tight credit for small investors. Of faceless, nameless megabanks. One would not think it possible at all … yet, here we have Slate, actively advocating for the doom of our republic, one attack upon the free market at a time. A quick breakdown:
The reasons lefties don’t like small banks:
1.) They can’t be massively overburdened with millions of dollars of duplicative and unnecessary regulatory costs. I’m not making in up, it’s right there in the article.
2.) Any bank that isn’t traded on Wallstreet or in some other liberal haven is, by definition, poorly run. Again, it’s right there. The dripping venom of coastal elitism exposed for the world to see.
3.) (and most hilariously) They can’t compete.
This combination of complaints is, itself, an indictment of the liberal ethos, but by far, number 3 is the worst. This person, advocating for megabanks which could not compete, failed, and would have been destroyed if it were not for my tax dollars, has the gall to say that banks that are 1.) operating, 2.) freely, 3.) and in an ongoing fashion in the open market, can’t compete.
Staring at the clouds and saying “they can’t fly.” These banks ARE competing. Daily. And they’re doing it without a ‘special relationship’ with government minders.
Now THAT’S the leftist objection.
Follow me on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/svdanneskjold