When either a private company or a government program becomes an institution -- something "too big to fail" -- I think that's a problem. Anybody disagree? My thinking is that if said institution has become so invaluable to the way things are done that things will have to be done a different way without them, at great cost and risk, then said institution has entirely too much leverage over society.
That is why no private industry should ever become "too big to fail". If it does it should be immediately government run.
You really write the most stupid (*)(*)(*)(*) I have seen on this board. And I've read tons of excrement. As to the subject- nothing is too big to fail. That is a contrivance of the masters at the helm, the corporate cronies of the kings in Washington. GM was failing, and it should have been left to fail. Social Security has already failed, along with numerous other government debacles, and they all should be dismantled.
Coming from somoene whos persona is taken after a psychotic cab driver, I'll take that as a compliment.
That's because like a typical leftist tool, you can't see past an image and dig into the substance. You could educate yourself by reading my words and stopping the silly knee jerk asinine reactions. Your profile has your age at 30, but you present yourself like a high school junior who's been coddled and spoiled. You need to wake the hell up.
How has social security failed? Last I checked, they still have never missed a payment. Are you one of those crazy conspiracy theorists who have no friends?
Take the advice, Montoya. Other members in various forums (myself included) have urged you, sometimes repeatedly, to stay focused on the topic at hand and try to avoid the ad hominem - or people are going to start to believe (as I and others already do) that you have no real understanding of politics, and little common sense with which to process the information. Regardless, Mr. Bickle is correct when he says that nothing is "too big to fail." I would like you to ignore the following article, and then reply with your thoughts on my "tea bagging" abilities: [From New American Magazine, 12 Nov. 2008] FALLACY #5: Say what you will, the government still needs to step in from time to time to rescue a corporation or an industry too important to our national economy to be allowed to fail. This requires general sacrifice, but it is better than allowing the collapse of an indispensable corporation or industry to bring down the entire economy. Answer: The failure of a corporation, even a large bank or financial company, will not bring down an entire economy. What happens in the free market when a large, inefficient corporation fails is that its assets are acquired by more efficient producers. This happened recently with the assets of Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, and Washington Mutual. When governments undertake to prop up or bail out inefficient corporations on the basis of specious arguments like the "too large to fail" canard, it is simply subsidizing inefficient producers at the expense of efficient ones (and saddling taxpayers with the tab). The idea that failed large corporations leave gaping rifts in economic productivity is absurd; their assets are simply purchased by other players and put back into productive work. When an airline fails, it does not junk its airplanes and other valuable assets, but instead sells them to a willing buyer, and its best employees are typically retained under the new management. Variants of the "critical industry" or "too big to fail" argument commit the cardinal fallacy of false economics, the failure to trace the consequence of a particular policy to its general and long-term effects, not merely its targeted short-term effects. Without doubt, individual corporations — their boards of directors, shareholders, and employees — benefit in the short term from a government bailout. Book assets are propped up, jobs are kept secure, and company morale is boosted. Given enough time, some corporations, like Lee Iacocca's Chrysler, may even right themselves and return to profitability. But the question that special interests lobbying on behalf of such government interference never consider is the general effect on the rest of the economy. Special interests are, after all, special; they are not paid, nor is it in their short-term best interest, to consider the "big picture." Yet good economics, as Hazlitt pointed out, "consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups." And as prudent citizens and taxpayers, we ought to do likewise. The hard truth is that government bailouts benefit none but the special interests thus rewarded, and possibly the politicians who reap the kickbacks. The money used for bailouts comes, directly or indirectly, from the taxpayer, money that would otherwise be used for more productive purposes in the free market. More efficient competitors and would-be purchasers of the inefficient corporation's assets are at a disadvantage; they are in effect being penalized for their frugality and efficiency to the same extent that the beneficiary of the bailout is being rewarded for its profligacy and inefficiency. And of course, the immense sums often involved in government bailouts, like the $700 billion dollar abomination recently passed by a supine Congress, will become the taxpayers' liability for generations to come.
