Straight up question - what's better a lot of small banks or a few large ones?

[ThomWV]

Obviously if the question is cost of inspection and regulation then a few large banks should be less expensive to monitor than many small ones. However if its spreading the risk of failure you wish to do then many smaller banks would be best. But those aren't the questions really. Understanding that some sort of bundling is required to finance really large projects what would best serve the needs of the nation - many small or a few large banks? My gut tells me many small banks.

A second question comes from this too. Our current monetary/finance system is a hodgepodge evolved over time. During some times well regulated and some other times not (as in the years 1980-present) it has fallen to pieces several times in our history. However with novel approaches to open source development of intricate systems which include unlimited public input becoming more common its hard to imagine that we are not capable of authoring and installing an alternative financial system. Certainly an alternative to our current system can be developed that is compatible with our capitalistic approach to economic matters but based on pragmatic application of laws and regulations that allow for our finance and monetary systems to be treated as public resource as vital as any other infrastructure and more importantly that serviced our banking needs. If there were a case to be made for the nationalization of any segment of our economy it could certainly be made for our monetary system itself.

[thereismore]

1. That's not even really the problem. The problem is that there is a Federal Bank

that prints money, lends it out at an interest. It is mathematically unsustainable. Congress should print money, not a private bank (the Fed). Right now, the only money that are printed by Congress are the coins.

[ThomWV]

2. I have to ask - how would you get the 'money' into circulation?

I don't mind that we might build a monetary system on paper currency rather than numbers digitized and held in computer banks but with the central bank system that we use its obvious how money gets into the system. I don't see how it happens otherwise though unless Government is the ultimate employer. I'm open to hear any and all means possible though.

[thereismore]

7. According to the Constitution the Congress issues money. That was farmed out

to a central PRIVATE entity (the Fed Bank). That is the problem. That, and lending with interest. When the Fed issues $100 of money and lends it at 10%, how can $110 come back to it when there is only $100 in circulation? That is why there are crashes, bubbles and depressions. The losses are built into the system. It's sickening really. Money should be printed in a Federal (i.e. gov'mint mint), and lending should be at 0 interest. Funny.

[Frustratedlady]

3. I should think on the average, the smaller, neighborhood or small city banks

are more honest. We know where they live.

Our banks may have been hit with foreclosures because we've had so many industries close in the past 10 years. They are pretty thorough in making sure you have the assets you claim to have before loaning. On the other hand, they will work with you if there is any chance you can work out your problems if you are laid off or for health reasons. Any mistreatment can bring down a bank in a smaller town, as the word gets out that you weren't treated fairly...people are not afraid to pass the message on, so to speak, so they can't afford bad PR.

I vote for smaller banks.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Well said. "We know where they live."

I heartily agree with that sentiment.

[JackRiddler]

4. One big national public bank -- a few thousand local credit unions.

[Bonhomme Richard]

6. As far as I can tell, our local banks seem.................

to be doing just fine. I guess that the Big corporations want to be able to go someplace to get BIG loans with less oversight for a smaller interest rate.

[AngryAmish]

8. If you are too big to fail...you are too big.