Not a good defense of megabanks

Earlier this week, William Harrison, former CEO of JP Morgan, wrote a defense of big banks in the NY Times.  I hadn't seen any comments on it until today when Simon Johnson takes the article apart. 

Harrison has six arguments in favor of the banks, Johnson rebuts each of them.

1. Harrison claims that the banks have grown because that's what consumers want.  Johnson feels lobbying by the banks was a large factor in the megabanks growth. 
2. In Harrison's view their size enables the megabanks to provide unique services.  Johnson cites sources that assert that there are no economies of scale or scope in banks with over $100 billion of total assets.
3. In a truly outlandish claim Harrison asserts that “large global institutions have often proved more resilient than others because their diversified business model ensures that losses in one part of the enterprise can be cushioned by revenues in other parts.”  Johnson believes that Harrison's memory must be faulty as Citigroup and B of A would have failed without the bailouts.
4. Another wild claim by Harrison:  megabanks don't receive special government subsidies.   Johnson asks what about the lower costs of capital because of government support of TBIF.
5. And one more wild Harrison claim “complexity can be an antidote to risk, rather than a cause of it”.  Tell that to Jamie Dimon.
6. Finally,  Mr. Harrison claims regulators are not cowed by banks.  Would Tim Geithner or Sheila Bair agree?