But even without a concrete comparison of the lending of big banks and community banks, the observation makes sense. Earlier this week we noted that many small banks who accepted bailout money are in jeopardy of failing. Hundreds have not yet paid back their bailout money. Meanwhile, the larger banks all seem to be faring pretty well, having mostly paid back what they owed the government.

The reasons for the different experience over the past few years of big and small banks is pretty simple to explain. Big banks have more diversified balance sheets, so their loan losses weren't as concentrated or severe as small banks' loan losses. When it came to mortgages, for example, most big banks sold many of them to investors through securitizations, while smaller banks more likely held them on their balance sheets. The big banks also have an easier time getting funding in the capital markets through either debt or equity. This allows them to regain their stability relatively quickly.

This trend is somewhat disturbing. The financial crisis was caused by toxic assets at big banks putting the entire financial system in jeopardy, because panic nearly caused their failures. And since they were too large and interconnected to be permitted fail, the government had to swoop in and rescue them. But that allowed them to regain their health relatively quickly. Meanwhile, smaller banks continue to struggle. That has allowed the big banks to capture much of the growth the smaller banks aren't in a position to experience.

Of course, as big banks become even bigger, their potential failure becomes even more dangerous. The too big to fail problem created a crisis that ultimately made the problem even more serious.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.