Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

David Leonhardt’s interview with President Obama includes a fair amount of conversation about the economy, including a question about whether big banks need to be split up:

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I’ve looked at the evidence so far that indicates that other countries that have not seen some of the problems in their financial markets that we have nevertheless don’t separate between investment banks and commercial banks, for example. They have a “supermarket” model that they’ve got strong regulation of.

Like Canada?

THE PRESIDENT: Canada being a good example….So — that doesn’t mean that, for example, an insurance company like A.I.G. grafting a hedge fund on top of it is something that is optimal….And in that sense I think you can make an argument that there may be a breaking point in which functions are so different that you don’t want a single company doing everything.

But when it comes to something like investment banking versus commercial banking, the experience in a country like Canada would indicate that good, strong regulation that focuses less on the legal form of the institution and more on the functions that they’re carrying out is probably the right approach to take.

I’m sort of waffly on the whole question of limiting bank size, but this isn’t an especially persuasive answer.  The experience of Canada is, I suppose, an existence proof that big banks can be regulated effectively, but when Obama says “other countries” he sure seems to be suggesting more than just Canada.  And frankly, I think he’d run out of examples pretty quickly.  After all, big banks Europe are in pretty bad shape.  Ditto for big banks in Japan following their property crash.  And big banks in Russia.  And big banks in Asia following their 1997 meltdown.

In some sense, I guess this comes down to a belt and suspenders issue.  I suspect Obama is basically right: regulating leverage is more crucial than regulating bank size.  A big bank with reasonable gearing is pretty safe.  But if you really want to be safe, you’ll have a fallback: not only will you regulate leverage, but you’ll limit bank size and complexity as well, so that even if a bank manages to evade the leverage rules it still can’t do too much damage.  It can only do that if it manages to evade two separate sets of rules.

More to the point, though, I wish Leonhardt hadn’t let Obama off the hook by feeding him the Canada example.  I would have have been curious to hear what Obama had to say without prompting.  Does he really think the banking system in the rest of the world is doing well because it’s better regulated than ours?  I’m not sure the evidence supports that.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate