I recently read Paul Krugman’s piece on “Making Banking Boring” on NYTimes.com. It had Krugman’s typical brilliance and wit, and he came across a point that I have always been wondering: wouldn’t the world be better if Wall Street was less lucrative?

Let’s really think about what that question is really asking. If banking was less lucrative, and if the Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers of the world did not handle so much of our economies money, wouldn’t that ultimately be better for the economy?

What bankers don’t tell you is that you don’t need them. Sure, they make buying, selling, investing, restructuring, and capitalizing on anything monetary a lot easier. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, they are nothing more than a real estate agent trying to sell your house. And while real estate agents are especially handy and adept at what they do, the fact is, you don’t need them. If you have a property that somebody wants, and you put it on the market, that somebody will buy it from you. Having the real estate agent just makes it an easier transaction that cost you more. Making things “easy” is delightful during prosperous times, but during a recession, it is a cost many choose to do without.

In Krugman’s piece, he makes specific mention of some very crucial points in our history that prove show a correlation between a smaller financial industry and good economic times. First, he mentions the stock market crash of 1929 that eventually led to the Great Depression. In the years well before that crash and the depression, dating back to World War I, banking was not an incredibly lucrative job. In fact, banking was boring, and the smartest and brightest young minds did not aspire to become bankers—afterall, if it’s not paying, it’s not really an awe-inspiring career. However, in the years leading up to the Great Depression, banking became lucrative, and big players in the industry had emerged and all of a sudden, the great young minds of that time wanted in on it. And when banking was doing well, the economy was growing, but only because the bankers were driving up debt, effectively doubling the average household debt as a percentage of G.D.P. between World War I and 1929. Turns out, the era of banking leading up to 1929 was full of scandal, fraud and poor investing, and ultimately, that led to the stock market crash and the Great Depression.

However, the Great Depression led to another period of time that Krugman pointed out, which was the decline of banking from 1929 to 1980. During that time, banking reverted back to its post World War I ways: it became boring again! As a result of the ’29 crash, banking was closely regulated, watched and restricted. Bankers began making far less money than they did pre-1929, and “household debt stayed far below pre-1930 levels.” It’s sufficient to say that this era in banking led to “an era of spectacular economic progress for most Americas.”

But then, as Krugman points out, 1980 rolled around and the Republicans started to take over the Capitol. I’m not trying to be partisan here, it’s just a fact that once the Republicans began to control congress and Ronald Regan was elected, “banking became exciting again.” Household debt rose, banking regulations were softened, and most importantly, bankers were making tons of money again.

Which brings us to 2009, or the years leading up to our current state of affairs. As a result of the growth of the financial industry and cutting of restrictions on it, we now find ourselves in this little pickle, better known as a recession. As history shows us through the Great Depression, it is bad times like this that can correct the economy and force the government to put strict regulations on the financial industry. We have already seen both political and public resentment towards bankers, Wall Street, and anyone who profits off the financial industry. That resentment from the public and Congress should result in America putting tighter restraints on banks, thereby shrinking the industry and ultimately our nation’s debt.

But one has to wonder, will that be enough? There is the distinct possibility that we have too much debt to erase. The financial industry and the major players in it may have dug us into such a big hole that we can’t climb ourselves out of this mess Yes, debt and the lucrative business of finance may be the fall of this baby empire we call America.

For those of you who choose to ignore this country’s youth, let me remind you, this country is young. The damn Declaration of Independence was written in 1776. That makes this country less than 300 years old. England, Egypt, China, Italy and Greece have buildings older than that. So if you have ever heard anyone compare America to Ancient Rome, I suggest you start listening to that person, because he or she is a smart human being.

Ancient Rome ultimately fell because of three factors. One, the military interfered with politics—something quite reminiscent of the Bush Administration. Two, corruption and lack of confidence in the government had taken over the public domain—something we have seen with the banking and mortgage frauds and the low approval ratings for Congress. And three, the gap between the rich and the poor had grown so large that the economy just wasn’t able to function properly—a mark our economy appears to be reaching as well.

Now, ultimately, Ancient Rome was invaded by the Huns and German Tribes, but the empire was so unbalanced politically, economically and socially, that these vastly inferior entities were able to conquer them in a relatively short period of time.

I’m not suggesting that America has reached that stage, but I’m not saying it’s impossible that we could get to that point. Think about it, is our military not suffering because of our political, economic and social behaviors? We are so divided politically that we are in a war that the 75% of the people in this country do not want to be in. We are so jacked up economically, that the very industries that help build this country into greatness (Detroit and New York City) are now facing financial ruins. And socially, had it not been for Barack Obama lighting a fire under the American people, I’m not sure anyone would give a damn about politics right now.

However, let’s be real. This whole thing is about money. Money is what this country is lacking, and the question is, we will ever be able to rectify our financial woes? And the answer, sadly, may be “no.” No nation, for the most part, has stood the test of time by importing more than they export in the early years of their existence. But that’s what we are doing despite being a nation that is less than 300 years old. We’re driving up our national debt, we’re driving up our household debt, and we’re driving up our personal debt, and unless there is a complete turnaround to all of this, I’m not sure we are going to come out of this like we expect to.

I am an internal optimist though. I do believe that we will do what’s right. I just don’t see any signs of it yet. I think the second this economy turns around, the big banks will be up and running again, ready to pounce on a market with much less competition. And unless those banks return to a market where they are not needed, used or coveted, I don’t see how this child we call America is going to be in this entity we call civilization for the long-haul.

Leave a Reply