mickey疯了

Those four words loomed large in 2008, as a crisis in the banking world threatened the global economy. Fears that the failure of large financial institutions would undermine the entire economic system led Congress to step in, passing a $700 billion bailout package.

In the bailout's aftermath, Congress passed new financial regulations aimed at reducing the chances that it would happen again. But there's widespread concern that the nation's largest banks are still too big to fail — and that taxpayer money would have to come to the rescue in the event of another crisis.

Some argue that the way to solve the problem is to break up those banks — to put limits on the size of their operations.

But others say the new regulations have made the system safer, and that big banks are necessary to serve the needs of a global economy.

Four experts recently faced off on this question in an Oxford-style debate for the Intelligence Squared U.S.series. They argued two against two on the motion, "Break Up The Big Banks."

Before the debate, the audience at New York City's Kaufman Center voted 37 percent in favor of the motion and 19 percent against. Forty-four percent were undecided. After the debate, 49 percent supported breaking up big banks — an increase of 12 percentage points — and 39 percent opposed — an increase of 20 points. That made the side arguing against breaking up the banks the winners of the debate.

Skyler

http://oe.passions.com.cn/data/appbyme/upload/audio/201505/07/vM0GP6JsGEtx.mp3