I was referring to the mini-crisis a year ago in which the article says some smaller and local banks were taken over by the government whereas the bigger banks were not given the same treatment. I'm sure that the lions share of corruption existed in the larger banks, but either because of their connections to the government, or - more likely - the fact that a sudden disruption in the centralized economic power(market share) of these large banks would of hurt the overall economy. Perhaps Chavez sees the time is right now to target these larger economic actors because of the worldwide financial shake up occurring and fragility of their positions right now.

When the bankers held the US economy hostage prior to their extortion of bailout(remember Paulson's initial 700 billion dollar ransom where he said bail us out or declare martial law because the economy will tank without us) - it elucidated not only the power, sway and influence of centralized economic power, but also the fragility of an economic system whose life depends on this centralized economic power. This institutionalized form of monopoly capitalism makes us dependent on it for our way of life and also leaves our supposed public representatives little recourse as to their options when "change" is promised. We are all invested in the beast - and thus dependent on it to maintain returns - whether that be our dollar value(purchasing power) or retirement savings. Will be very interesting to see what will be happening in 2011 . . .