← Back to Library

Monopoly round-up: The slow death of banking in America

Matt Stoller identifies a quiet but potentially catastrophic fracture in the American financial system: a legislative stalemate born not from partisan gridlock, but from a collision between the traditional banking lobby and a newly empowered, crypto-fueled MAGA movement. This is not merely a story about deregulation; it is an analysis of how the very mechanism that funds small businesses and local communities—the local bank—is being squeezed out by a zero-sum fight for government-guaranteed deposits. Stoller argues that the cancellation of a critical Senate Banking Committee meeting reveals that the "slow death" of community banking is accelerating, driven by a coalition that views financial regulation as an enemy rather than a public trust.

The George Bailey Myth and the Reality of Consolidation

Stoller begins by dismantling the cultural nostalgia for American banking, contrasting the "generous local elite" with the "extractive beancounter." He invokes the classic film It's a Wonderful Life to illustrate the traditional populist view of finance, where a local banker like George Bailey enables community growth, while distant Wall Street figures like Harry Potter represent predatory extraction. "Americans have always understood that distant control of credit is dangerous," Stoller writes, noting that this skepticism is embedded in our cultural totems from Wall Street to The Big Short. However, he argues this cultural memory is fading as the institutional fabric of local finance erodes.

Monopoly round-up: The slow death of banking in America

The data Stoller presents is stark: while small and regional banks held only 17% of industry assets in 2020, they provided 46% of lending to new and growing businesses. This disparity highlights the unique role of local institutions in fueling the real economy, a role that is vanishing. "In the post-war era, this mix of banking was relatively stable, with roughly fourteen thousand local banks and thrifts serving as mortgage and commercial lenders," he notes. But policy shifts in the 1980s, designed to encourage consolidation and mergers, have decimated this network. The result is a landscape where the number of banks has plummeted from 14,000 to fewer than 4,000, with projections suggesting fewer than 1,000 could remain by the end of the current administration.

Local banks used to be, and to some extent still are, the powerhouse of American cities and towns.

Critics might argue that consolidation brings efficiency and lower costs for consumers through better technology and broader reach. Stoller counters this by pointing out that the "efficiency" of mega-banks often comes at the cost of local credit availability, turning banking into a speculative game rather than a public utility. He emphasizes that banks are not private entities but "franchises from the government," a concept scholar Saule Omarova highlights when she notes that bankers safeguard the nation's money and payments system as a public duty.

The Crypto-MAGA Alliance and the Battle for Deposits

The core of Stoller's argument lies in the unexpected alliance between the crypto industry and the political right. He describes the crypto sector not as a technological revolution, but as a "scam economy" that has successfully bought its way into the regulatory apparatus. "Unfortunately, there were no actual real use cases for productive ends, it was entirely a way of scamming or speculating without rules," Stoller asserts. This ideological shift has transformed the industry from a libertarian experiment into a powerful lobbying force, exemplified by the Fairshake PAC, which spent hundreds of millions to influence Congress.

The immediate flashpoint is the "Clarity Act" and the debate over whether crypto firms can pay interest on stablecoins. Stoller explains that if crypto exchanges can offer interest-bearing accounts, they will siphon the cheap deposits that local banks rely on to make loans. "If crypto exchanges can pay interest or rewards on stablecoins, then local banks lose their deposit base," he writes. This is an existential threat to community banks, which cannot compete with the high yields offered by crypto firms that operate with minimal regulation and no requirement to hold reserves in the same way.

The banking lobby, traditionally aligned with the Republican party, found itself in a bizarre position: fighting against a new wave of conservative crypto influencers who are demanding access to the same government safety nets that protect traditional banks. "Community and regional bankers are not used to fighting with conservatives, because they haven't had to," Stoller observes. This internal conflict led to the abrupt cancellation of the Senate Banking Committee's markup, leaving the future of financial regulation in limbo. The administration's weakness on financial policy, particularly the lack of a clear stance from the White House, has allowed this zero-sum battle to fester.

The rise of crypto parallels the consolidation and corruption of banking.

Stoller suggests that the crypto industry's strategy is to dismantle the remaining regulations on speculation while simultaneously demanding access to the Federal Reserve's safety net. "They started claiming they are bank-like, only better, and that the current banking order is lazy and protected by regulation," he notes. This dual approach—attacking rules while seeking subsidies—is designed to extract maximum profit with minimum risk, a model that Stoller argues is fundamentally incompatible with a stable, productive economy.

The Stakes for the Real Economy

The implications of this stalemate extend far beyond the balance sheets of financial institutions. Stoller warns that the decline of local banking threatens the economic self-sufficiency of American towns and cities. "Local economies still depend on local banks, and there are fewer and fewer of them," he writes. The shift toward a capital markets-driven economy, where finance is detached from the real economy, has already created a system prone to bubbles and crises. The addition of a crypto layer, unmoored from traditional safeguards, risks exacerbating these vulnerabilities.

The historical context Stoller provides is crucial here. The Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s and the subsequent repeal of Glass-Steagall laid the groundwork for the current consolidation. These historical moments show that deregulation often leads to concentration, not competition. "Since the 1980s, finance has changed. We are a capital markets driven economy, not a bank-driven one," Stoller explains, but he argues that the underlying need for local credit remains. The failure to protect this credit channel could leave small businesses and homeowners without access to affordable financing.

Banking is a great business, because mostly you pay customers a small amount for the use of their money, and get the government to guarantee you a profit.

A counterargument worth considering is that the crypto industry could bring innovation to payments and reduce transaction costs. Stoller dismisses this, pointing to the lack of real-world use cases and the prevalence of fraud and money laundering. He argues that the industry's focus on speculation, rather than utility, makes it a net negative for the economy. "Crypto was ideological, at first framed around utopian rhetoric and the blockchain," he writes, but it has devolved into a mechanism for speculation that benefits only a few.

Bottom Line

Stoller's most compelling contribution is his reframing of the crypto-banking conflict not as a technological debate, but as a fight over the very nature of the American financial franchise. The strongest part of his argument is the clear evidence that local banks are the primary engine of small business lending, a role that cannot be easily replaced by speculative crypto platforms. However, his reliance on the assumption that the banking lobby will successfully resist crypto encroachment may be overly optimistic, given the industry's immense political capital. The reader should watch for the next legislative attempt to resolve the "interest on stablecoins" question, as the outcome will determine whether community banking survives or becomes a relic of the past.

Deep Dives

Explore these related deep dives:

  • Savings and loan crisis

    The article references 1980s banking deregulation that led to consolidation and failures. The S&L crisis was the pivotal event that triggered the collapse of thousands of local banks and thrifts, directly shaping the banking landscape described in the article.

  • Glass–Steagall legislation

    The article discusses the separation between local banking and Wall Street speculation, and the post-1980s deregulation that blurred these lines. Glass-Steagall was the foundational law that maintained this separation until its repeal, central to understanding the transformation described.

  • Community Reinvestment Act

    The article emphasizes local banks' role in community lending and the regulatory bargain between banks and government. The CRA is the key legislation that codified banks' obligations to serve local communities in exchange for their government-backed privileges.

Sources

Monopoly round-up: The slow death of banking in America

by Matt Stoller · · Read full article

Lots of monopoly-related news this week, as usual. A Canadian deal with China shows the world turning against America, Trump nominated a billionaire to run his antitrust policy at the Federal Trade Commision, and Mayor Zohran Mamdani seems to be off to a great start. And a lot more..

But before getting to all of that news, I want to highlight an important moment on Capitol Hill last week that could dictate the future of finance in America. On Thursday, the Senate Banking Committee abruptly canceled its meeting, known as a mark-up, to write little-noticed legislation to deregulate the financial system. And the reason is that two of the more powerful forces in D.C. - the banking lobby and the new MAGA-powered crypto world - came into conflict. The result, so far, is a stalemate.

I haven’t written about crypto for a few years, because there’s not much to say beyond “they did a lot of bribes in a bribe-prone system.” But depending on what happens next, we could be looking at the end of an iconic American figure, the local banker, and his or her replacement with something very different. The context of the legislative fight is, as you see in lots of other areas, the decline of the productive institutional fabric of America.

Culturally speaking, banks have a weird place in America, as they are the institutions that control permission to use resources. The endless number of bank heist movies, often with plucky burglars as heroic figures telling bank customers they needn’t worry because it’s not their money at risk, suggests that there’s a lot of skepticism of financial power in general. But there are two types of bankers, the generous local elite and the extractive beancounter. These represent a traditional populist vs oligarch framework.

Take the holiday classic film It’s a Wonderful Life. It’s about a small town banker named George Bailey, played by Jimmy Stewart. Bailey’s help financing useful things in Bedford Falls, like houses and businesses, contrasts with the avaricious Harry Potter, who is a stand-in for Wall Street.

There’s a reason for these cultural totems. Americans have always understood that distant control of credit is dangerous, the theme of movies such as Wall Street, Margin Call, and The Big Short. They also see that local control of credit and payments is key to self-sufficiency. Local banks uses to be, and to some extent still ...