Antitrust und der Unterschied zwischen Dot.com und Bankenbubble

Auf Salon.com gibt es ein lesenswertes Interview mit Simon Johnson MIT Professor und vormaliger IMF Chefökonom (auch Blogger auf Baseline Schenario) zur Finanzkrise. In diesem Interview fordert Simon Johnson, dass die Härte des amerikanischen Wettbewerbsrechts (Antitrust-law) gegen die Banken eingesetzt wird:

I've been saying that for awhile, but the new piece is to use antitrust law to do it. Some good lawyers have thought about this now for us, and they are saying, certainly, changing the legislation to make this easier is the way to go. The lawyers themselves are divided on whether you can do this under the existing legal framework. But the historians are adamant that what we are saying is very much in the spirit of the original antitrust movement. What Teddy Roosevelt and his cohorts were worried about was excessive power -- political power for these oligarchs.

Und zum Unterschied zwischen Dot.com Bubble und dem Finanzbubble meint er:

I am not trying to prevent crazy investments. I see a lot of crazy people around MIT who turn out to be brilliant and very successful and I never would have picked them. I like that. But those are equity investments, and the dot-com bubble to me is an excellent counterpoint to the housing meta-financial problem -- which was a debt-driven bubble. There's a big difference. If your equity value goes down a lot, it's painful and consumer spending may fall because of the wealth effect, but it is not a global cataclysm. The dot-com bust was a big bad bubble and it burst and it was messy and a lot of my students couldn't get jobs, and they went off and did something else.

I'm not saying venture capitalists putting their own money at risk is going to lead automatically to stability. But it does feed into innovation. I think if you look at canals, or railroads in the 19th century, or the advent of the automobile or any of the other sort of big breakthrough technologies, they often come with crazy investment booms, particularly in the United States. Anywhere that's a frontier of technology, often these breakthroughs come with a thousand firms being formed, massive amounts of money being pumped in, lots of of stupid things happening, people building two canals next to each other, or two railroads next to each other, and then there is a financial collapse, but you still get to keep the physical infrastructure. At the end of the dot-com thing we had a pretty good Internet.

What do we get out of the meta-financial crap? It's not so clear that we got useful things. Did our ATM fees come down? No.*

* ATM-fees sind die Bankomatgebühren