- - Sunday, June 17, 2012


Have you ever stopped to think about how the breakup of AT&T revolutionized the information and communications technology market? Most people probably haven’t, but in 1984, the end of the regulated monopoly ushered in an era of unprecedented competition and innovation.

For those who are not familiar, AT&T broke up in 1984 after it decided to end a long, drawn-out anti-monopoly lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice. AT&T had to either spin off its 22 local operating companies into seven Bell holding companies while keeping control of their equipment manufacturing and research and development operations or relinquish control of equipment manufacturing and research and development while retaining control of their local operations.

Still think “revolutionized” is too strong a characterization? Google the AT&T breakup on your iPad or use your mobile phone to ask a friend, and in the process you will use products whose existence is in a large part a direct result of the divestiture.

While the information and communications technology market flourishes, the same cannot be said for today’s financial services system. In the aftermath of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, what will stimulate economic growth are credit-delivery products and innovation. However, marketplace advances aren’t keeping pace with innovation.

This isn’t about products like the subprime mortgages; those will forever be a cautionary tale about greed. In fairness, the overwhelming majority of Americans had nothing to do with that fiasco, but nonetheless continue to pay an enormous price. In a recent speech to address the nation’s slow recovery, John Williams, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, cited tight credit as a byproduct of the housing bust and emphasized what we all know - that, for many, credit is more difficult to find. Moreover, Mr. Williams said, “Tight credit is among the factors that work to reduce desired spending by household, businesses and government below the level consistent with full employment.”

To better understand this stagnation, consider how banks were the foundation of the financial regulatory system dating back to the National Bank Act of 1864. In 1861, when a national banking system was in the works, Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase recommended that the banking system be chartered by the federal government. The National Bank of 1864 took Chase’s model and established a federal-state “dual banking system” that outlasted the Civil War and still survives today.

The language of this act created a federal office in the Treasury Department called the Comptroller of the Currency. The comptroller required each newly chartered national bank to give government bonds to the Treasury “in an amount equal to $30,000 or one-third of its capital, whichever was greater.” However, after this requirement was revoked in 1913, the roles of federally chartered national banks administered by the office of the comptroller have continued to be significant in the national economy. The act spurred the creation of powerful nationwide banks such as Citibank, the Bank of America and thousands of local banks.

Because the language of this act has remained largely unchanged, banks continue to dominate, if not monopolize, the market nearly 150 years later. It is because of this act that the federal government spent $200 billion bailing out Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and other nationwide banks in 2008.

Given their prevailing 20th-century mentality and saddled with new and burdensome regulations, banks have little incentive to develop affordable credit options to serve the needs of millions of American consumers.

I’m not talking about the Warren Buffetts of the world; I’m talking about people who wake up every day worried about the future - which unfortunately accounts for most of us. A report released by the Corporation for Enterprise Development found that 127.5 million people are liquid-asset poor, meaning that a sudden loss in household income would leave them below the poverty line in just three months.

Real progress lies in old-fashioned entrepreneurship; this is the same kind of innovation that took us from a rotary-dial land line to a cellphone and from analog television to digital cable. Emerging technology in the non-bank financial space is a natural progression from a bank-centered economic system. Yet qualified trendsetters are stymied by a regulatory environment resistant to business models other than traditional banks. Marketplace innovations are unduly restricted by an antiquated financial system that has failed to keep up with the changing demands of consumers.

The government needs to realize that, like AT&T, national bank giants eventually need to be broken up and weaned off heavy government subsidies. That way, other competitors in the marketplace can spur innovation in consumer finance without having to worry about too much government regulation.

Armstrong Williams is on Sirius/XM Power 169 from 7-8 p.m. and 4-5 a.m. Mondays through Fridays. Become a fan on Facebook at facebook.com/arightside, and follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/arightside.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide