Sandy Weill, who created the era of megabanks when he led Citigroup in the 1990s, has called for America's biggest banks to be broken up.

© ReutersSandy Weill's fortune was estimated at $1.3bn before Citigroup shares crashed in 2008
The call from the 79 year-old will cause a stir on Wall Street and in the City of London because Mr Weill engineered the 1998 deal that made Citigroup the world's largest bank. Hailed at the time, the merger of Citicorp and Travelers Group required the US government to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, a law dating back to the Great Depression that prevented banks from both taking deposits from customers and gambling on the markets.
"What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking," Mr Weill said in a television interview on Wednesday. "Have banks do something that's not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that's not going to be too big too fail."
Mr Weill's intervention comes as the debate in the US over how to regulate the country's largest banks has been reignited by JP Morgan Chase's almost $6bn (£4.9bn) trading loss on complex derivative trades. JP Morgan chief executive Jamie Dimon, who was Mr Weill's chief lieutenant at Citi until the two fell out, has insisted that combining retail and investment banking is beneficial to consumers and businesses.
"I'm suggesting that they [the banks] be broken up so that the taxpayer will never be at risk, the depositors won't be at risk, the leverage of the banks will be something reasonsable," said Mr Weill, whose fortune was estimated at $1.3bn before Citigroup shares crashed in 2008. The bank eventually turned to the US taxpayer for a
$45bn bail-out later that year.
Rather than split up the largest banks, the Dodd-Frank Act - America's signature piece of financial reform since the crisis - limited their activities and gave regulators more power. Critics of the reform say it has not removed the risk that taxpayers will ultimately have to bail-out the banks again should they get in trouble.
Comment: They have been deliberately flooding the US with affordable military-grade firearms for decades. Perhaps the deeper intention of apparently senseless acts like this horrific mass shooting is to rile gun owners into a defensive posture and thereby increase gun sales, not decrease them. As is outlined in The Controversy of Zion, the Powers That Be want global revolution, so that when it's over they can pick up the pieces and start with some new form of control. People don't realise that the 'security forces' are as expendable as civilians to the Powers That Be.
What those who constantly appeal to the US constitution's 2nd amendment don't seem to grasp is that if the government really wanted to "take away your guns" they would have done it long ago. They have deliberately allowed the mass arming of American civilians. Are we to suppose that this state of affairs happened by accident?