It's interesting and indeed I disagree. And maybe I have more ammo like you said. Some key points which I would disagree:
This notion that financial giants felt no pain during the crisis is silly. Lehman imploded. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government. Bear, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual and Wachovia collapsed into the arms of competitors. Their CEO’s all lost their jobs. Their investors all absorbed extraordinary losses. AIG’s financial wizards never expected a massive bailout when they decided to insure mortgage bonds; the Fed had never even contemplated assistance for an insurer.
That doesn't mean that the market is not rigged in favor of a few banks. All the financial crises (and the big crash in 1929), are also used by the biggest banks to eliminate competitors.
According to chapter 20 conclusions of the US Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission:
“As a result of the rescues and consolidation of financial institutions through failures and mergers during the crisis, the U.S. financial sector is now more concentrated than ever in the hands of a few very large, systemically significant institutions.”
Also, the Fed is being accused of giving trillions of black money to the US shadow banking, thanks to the persistence of Bernie Sanders:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/12/20/the-tax-payers-tab-a-cool-9-trillion-and-then-some/
“Eight million Americans lost their jobs. Six million lost their homes.” Well, 14 million Americans have gotten new jobs since 2010. The housing market has recovered. And the big banks utterly failed to kill big reform.
This is a simplified logic. 14 million gotten new jobs since 2010. That doesn't mean anything. Under what conditions, salaries? How many others lost their jobs since then? The housing market recovered. So what? That means that the 6 million who lost their houses in the crisis, took back their homes? We are talking about people here, not just numbers in a computer screen.
McKay told Vox that today, the “too-big-to-fail” problem is “actually worse in some ways,” but that’s not true. It's actually better in every way. Thanks to tighter regulations and capital requirements for bigger banks, along with a slew of other new rules designed to help government officials wind them down safely if they get into trouble, the so-called “too-big-to-fail subsidy” has virtually disappeared;
I don't know where does that come from. Personally, I'll bet on McKay's opinion. Lobbyists are more powerful than ever. They have taken every key government position in the US-EU and actually pushing for further deregulation. Just an example:
http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2014/07/leaked-banksters-promote-further.html
Furthermore all the TTIP-type agreements, designed by the lobbyists, promote further deregulation in every lever in favor of the big banks and corporations. As we know from leaks, because these are decided behind closed doors in absolute secrecy, this is a key element of all these agreements. So, I'd say that I can't see the thing getting better every day. On the contrary, it's getting worse.
= new reply since forum marked as read
