Quote

Capping the size of American banks won't eliminate the needs of big businesses; it will force them to turn to foreign banks that won't face the same restrictions.

It is no wonder that bank capital is regulated. When borrowing and lending is profitable, it is tempting for banks to scale up their operations and to borrow and lend too much in relation to their capital, in effect reducing the effectiveness of the potential capital cushion.

Credit unions are often a better deal than banks and tend to pay higher yields on deposits.

It's extremely important for our banks to have more capital, higher quality capital.

Limits should be placed on how big big banks can become.

People with banking experience haven't all flocked to the biggest banks; community banks and regional banks, along with smaller trading houses and credit unions, have some very talented people.

Banks need to have large shareholders on the board that have a direct interest in their performance.

Banks should contribute to the real economy, make a positive contribution to economic growth.

If we want the banks to lend - and we all do - if we want the economy to expand - and we all do - do you really want to start confining the banks in their ability to make profits in order to generate more capital to lend out to the people?

It is probably the case that some regulation of financing will make crises less likely, and I would say higher capital requirements are an almost fail-safe way to make banks safer. But there are a lot of other things that may not be doing that, and so we need to be careful about sort of, like, rushing to one conclusion or another.