Should the big banks be broken up. Certainly the chorus from top financiers calling for a bust up is growing.

Earlier this month, former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan said the banks needed to broken up because they have become too big. Greenspan said: "If they’re too big to fail, they’re too big. In 1911 we broke up Standard Oil - so what happened? The individual parts became more valuable than the whole. Maybe that’s what we need to do."

He was joined by Bank of England governor Mervyn King who said the government bailout of banks had "created possibly the biggest moral hazard in history". Expecting taxpayers to provide catastrophe insurance, King said, was just wrong.

Former federal reserve chairman Paul Volcker has called for the reinstatement of laws that stop banks from owning and trading risky securities.

Still, their calls are unlikely to get any traction from the Obama administration which seems to be in the pocket of Wall Street. As former Clinton man Robert Reich says in his blog, the White House and Congress won't do it because of the close links with Wall Street. "If I were less charitable I'd say Geithner and Summers continue to bend over bankwards to make Wall Street happy, and in doing so continue to risk the credibility of the President, as well as the long-term financial stability of the system ... The Street obviously detests the notion that its behemoths should be broken up. That's why the idea isn't even on the table. But it should be. No important public interest is served by allowing giant banks to grow too big to fail. Winding them down after they get into trouble is no answer. By then the damage will already have been done. Whether it's using the antitrust laws or enacting a new Glass-Steagall Act, the Wall Street giants should be split up - and soon.".

Given the track record of US administrations so far, whether it's Bush or Obama, that's unlikely to happen. The links with the banks are just too strong.