The miracle of shrinking bank competition

From some dude on Twitter, comes a chart showing that Karl Marx was not all wrong about capitalism and competition as 37 banks became just four in 20 years:

BnDnlEnCIAA89cy

Comments

  1. reusachtigeMEMBER

    Hey, that’s communist talk! 😉 (easiest way to shut down any reference to Karl Marx no matter how valid it actually may be)

  2. That is an amazing chart… one to show people who believe we actually live in a competitve market economy.

  3. Well I suppose those US banks had no choice if they wanted to be able to compete on the world stage with the big 4 from the land down under.

    • Lol!

      Warren Buffet knew what was going on when he invested in Wells Fargo all those years ago.

  4. So let me see you implement some of the demands laid out in the communist manifesto to varying degrees and then blame capitalism for the result :

    Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
    A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
    Abolition of all right of inheritance.
    Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
    Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. Etc.

      • … and he will be sure to decry the unfairness of capitalism when Goldman Sachs monopolizes all banking.

  5. I’d love to see that chart for Australian Banks (or telcos). We’ve allowed virtually the same thing, and created all these “too big to fail” institutions.

  6. invest-magicMEMBER

    Capitalism keeps taking the blame for CRONY-capitalism.

    If it was true capitalism, there would no bailouts.

    Then this chart would show 4 banks dying and getting replaced by many more again!

    • drsmithyMEMBER

      Capitalism keeps taking the blame for CRONY-capitalism.

      That’s because the former is simply the larval stage of the latter.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        That’s pretty absurd. By that logic environmental progressivism is the larval stage of Authoritarian repressivism — curious thing happened on the way to the boomerggadon, once upon a time conservatives were the environmentally conscious ones and the pro-labour pro-industry were the ones who scoffed at the notions of pollutants… then we got John Howard…

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        By that logic environmental progressivism is the larval stage of Authoritarian repressivism […]

        What logic is that ?

        […] curious thing happened on the way to the boomerggadon, once upon a time conservatives were the environmentally conscious ones and the pro-labour pro-industry were the ones who scoffed at the notions of pollutants… then we got John Howard…

        When was that ?

      • I think Teddy Roosevelt falls under that definition.

        He started environmental conservatism.

        Though rather anti-communal, he was radical in many aspects.

  7. sbinderMEMBER

    I think it would be a fair assessment that most of the last cohort to be absorbed, and probably quite a chunk of the prior years, were the result of the failure of one of the parties.

    So the mergers were forced. Not all, but certainly many.

    So while it is correct that the numbers of banks has reduced, not all has been predatory. Although I’ve never met a banker who wanted to shrink their way to greatness.

    The choice for the regulators and government would be to either prop up a failing entity (with taxpayers money), until it recovered, or allow it to merge. Typically, the answer has been allow it to merge, partially I suspect because the shareholders of the stronger party take the risk. Which has allowed the creation of these large and systemically important institutions. So the taxpayer ends up with the risk anyway.

    Funny.