Another one of my hand it off to somebody else posts.
Is Jack Krugman ..., no, wait, Paul Klugman ...er, is the guy right? Is the crucial factor the size of the bank, or how regulated it is?
Basically Krugman is arguing to regulate the big banks, not break them up. Krugman argues regulation worked ever since the Great Depression (up to around the time someone started asking what the meaning of the word is is), and by the way those just-before-the-crash banks weren't big, they just managed to fail in a series. I would suggest we have guys experienced in breaking up companies, such as Carl Ichan (make him Secretary of Fixing Market Failure and Kicking Butt). Personally I'd be OK with both regulation and breakup, but I think Krugman thinks if we get one, we won't get the other. Of course we may not get either, but hey, a (cautious, moderate, pragmatic) black man was elected Prez, and we got (sort of) health care reform. We can (almost, maybe) do anything.