• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Single Business Should Ever Be Too Big To Fail...

Actually - I take 'too big to fail' to mean that they're becomed depended on by so many individuals, other businesses and even the government that if they DO fail they'll take a lot of others down with them.

'Too big to fail' - with my view - means that a company has overreached its bounds and more or less become akin to a monolopy in it's market. But regulating the size of a business isn't wise - the government should minimize their issues with a collapsing giant by NOT becoming dependent on them.

Individuals and small towns should wise up and NOT become solely dependent on just one company, as well - including the military.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Actually - I take 'too big to fail' to mean that they're becomed depended on by so many individuals, other businesses and even the government that if they DO fail they'll take a lot of others down with them.

'Too big to fail' - with my view - means that a company has overreached its bounds and more or less become akin to a monolopy in it's market. But regulating the size of a business isn't wise - the government should minimize their issues with a collapsing giant by NOT becoming dependent on them.

Individuals and small towns should wise up and NOT become solely dependent on just one company, as well - including the military.
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong on the definition of " too big to fail". Let's put aside GM as that was a political decision not an economic one. With the banks it was less the number of individuals that would be impacted and more the fact that through derivatives, if one institution went down then the insurance held by other banks would lose value and thus their holdings would have to be written down. So one company going down could impact several "healthy" institutions.

Also remember that TARP on the banks will end up making money. Versus the S&L cleanup in the 80's that cost us about $500 billion.
 
atrasicarius said:
The problem was created by the free market, and then made worse by the bailout.
Click to expand...
Your are correct and I would say the only solution would be the free market...let it fail.
 
Paschendale said:
You do know that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation, right? And a for-profit one, too.
Click to expand...
Yep and it's corruption on the highest level for our government to allow the federal reserve to regulate our private banks. This is a very dangerous thing indeed....


If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 33
 
Paschendale said:
You do know that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation, right? And a for-profit one, too.
Click to expand...

The Fed has a unique structure which was intended to give it more autonomy. However, it is not a private corporation. The Fed returns all "profits" (i.e., interest received minus operational costs) to the treasury. "Stock" in the Fed is non transferable. No dividends or distribution are ever paid to "stockholders." This "corporation" has no interest in profits, revenues or capital accumulation beyond the small amounts necessary for its operations.
 
RStringfield said:
The Fed has a unique structure which was intended to give it more autonomy. However, it is not a private corporation. The Fed returns all "profits" (i.e., interest received minus operational costs) to the treasury. "Stock" in the Fed is non transferable. No dividends or distribution are ever paid to "stockholders." This "corporation" has no interest in profits, revenues or capital accumulation beyond the small amounts necessary for its operations.
Click to expand...

Ahhh... clever picture of benign service to the people... compelling even...

and true...

However...

The Fed has no real oversight, is not subject to congressional policy over the money supply and while there is not investment stock in the Fed, those that operate it have investment stocks in the banks and corporations that benefit from the monetary policy it creates.

It is in this way that the Fed facilitates the transfer and consolidation of wealth and influence by the fiat money changers that make up or are dependent on the system.
 
washunut said:
I think you are wrong on the definition of " too big to fail". Let's put aside GM as that was a political decision not an economic one. With the banks it was less the number of individuals that would be impacted and more the fact that through derivatives, if one institution went down then the insurance held by other banks would lose value and thus their holdings would have to be written down. So one company going down could impact several "healthy" institutions.

Also remember that TARP on the banks will end up making money. Versus the S&L cleanup in the 80's that cost us about $500 billion.
Click to expand...

Let's also remember. Many warned about this for a good while. People like Bernanke rolled their eyes and said that there was no problem. And no, we are not going to make money. We are still shoveling it into the F&F hole and who knows how much more will go into it.
 
sookster said:
Elaborate please.
Click to expand...

About what? I thought I've made my complaint pretty clear. No group does anything for any one reason. Many that steal (I'd say most) do not steal just to survive.
 
No you haven't. You basically said in response to me saying, that a person who steals someone's shoes could either use the shoes themselves or sell them, had nothing to do with survival. It didn't make any sense.

People steal to survive. Take robbing a bank. If it is either putting food on the table or sustaining the current standard of living, stealing money results in ensuring survival.

When people are put into dire situations, especially that of survival, they will do anything for self preservation. This is why there is a positive correlation to crime and poverty.
 
Occam's Razor said:
Ahhh... clever picture of benign service to the people... compelling even...

and true...

However...

The Fed has no real oversight, is not subject to congressional policy over the money supply and while there is not investment stock in the Fed, those that operate it have investment stocks in the banks and corporations that benefit from the monetary policy it creates.

It is in this way that the Fed facilitates the transfer and consolidation of wealth and influence by the fiat money changers that make up or are dependent on the system.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The crimes in banking are carried out in broad day light. They create money through fractional reserve banking, lend it to us then charge us interest.
 
sookster said:
No you haven't. You basically said in response to me saying, that a person who steals someone's shoes could either use the shoes themselves or sell them, had nothing to do with survival. It didn't make any sense.

People steal to survive. Take robbing a bank. If it is either putting food on the table or sustaining the current standard of living, stealing money results in ensuring survival.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. You do not need to maintain your current standard of living to survive.

When people are put into dire situations, especially that of survival, they will do anything for self preservation. This is why there is a positive correlation to crime and poverty.
Click to expand...

That is the exception, not the rule. Many steal to pay for their drug habit. One does not need this habit to survive. Quite the contrary.
 
Drug addiction has everything to do with it. Chemical dependency is basically another drive. (Drive being defined as sleep, sex, food, and so forth) Without the drug, there would be chemical withdrawal, in which case the ability to function is drastically diminished. This is why drug addicts usually detox in hospitals.

Also, drug addiction is essential for dealing with the constant stress and fear that poverty presents. If people didn't get high, most of them probably would be too scared to go to the grocery store. If they can't go to the grocery store, they can't get food, which therefore hinders their ability to survive.

I can tell you have absolutely no idea what true poverty is.
 
You can't tell squat. You are just trying to make excuse for being a theif. Nearly everyone in prison will try and make the same excuses.
 
And so the true reason comes forth, which is what I said earlier.

It is easier for you to deal with the fact that thieves are completely at fault for their actions, not the system. This allows you to be at peace with your nice air conditioned car, and a nice single or two story home. It is harder to deal with the reality that it is people's desires to self-preserve at no matter the cost, that results to so much suffering and death.

Your brain is keeping itself from experiencing pain. It's a normal response, but that doesn't mean what you perceive is Truth. As a parent can testify from raising children, pain is necessary to live in this world.
 
sookster said:
And so the true reason comes forth, which is what I said earlier.

It is easier for you to deal with the fact that thieves are completely at fault for their actions, not the system.
Click to expand...

You are the one making absolutes, not me. The system is not at fault for your theft.

This allows you to be at peace with your nice air conditioned car, and a nice single or two story home. It is harder to deal with the reality that it is people's desires to self-preserve at no matter the cost, that results to so much suffering and death.

Your brain is keeping itself from experiencing pain. It's a normal response, but that doesn't mean what you perceive is Truth. As a parent can testify from raising children, pain is necessary to live in this world.
Click to expand...

But you prefer to steal.
 
You refuse to listen to what I am saying. I have no desire to continue. I disagree, and I'll leave it at that.
 
Yes, I refuse to accept your excuses for stealing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom