- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 104,408
- Reaction score
- 67,624
- Location
- Uhland, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
"Too big to fail" should never have happened but now should be broken up. Nationalizing just makes them part of failed gov control experiment. The gov is suppose to limit the size and regulate business not get involved in the profit and loss end of it. It isn't gov that controls corporations it's the other way around.
Lobbying Client Total
US Chamber of Commerce $857,015,680
American Medical Assn $269,507,500
General Electric $268,810,000
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $219,393,920
American Hospital Assn $219,214,136
AARP $214,872,064
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $184,878,020
National Assn of Realtors $184,433,988
Northrop Grumman $176,015,253
Exxon Mobil $173,592,742
Verizon Communications $168,984,841
Edison Electric Institute $162,835,999
Business Roundtable $160,310,000
Boeing Co $159,634,310
Lockheed Martin $154,390,388
AT&T Inc $142,039,336
Southern Co $134,740,694
General Motors $130,034,170
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $127,770,000
Pfizer Inc $123,607,268
What? Corporations can not vote, yet they are heavily regulated and taxed, resulting in regulation and taxation without representation. In order to have a voice they have no choice but to use lobbying "citizens" on their behalf. Perhaps the BEST way to get corporations out of the process of gov't is to get gov't out of the process of micro-managing corporations. If corp. A is given a subsidy or tax break, it is only natural that corp. B will want that too. ;-)
If things start to go nasty again and new bailouts are on the way, should the "too big to fail" be nationalised instead? :coffeepap
Orderly liquidation into some number of smaller entities, kind of like what we do with monopolies.
If things start to go nasty again and new bailouts are on the way, should the "too big to fail" be nationalised instead? :coffeepap
Why would you want the government to take control of a company that is about to fail?
No company should be considered "too big to fail".
In a free market capitalist system those too inept to succeed should fail ! Nationalizing these companies would fundamentally change our system into either fascism or socialism both of which will rely more on the capriciousness of the controller. Think US Postal Service but delivering more than just mail !
Why would you want the government to take control of a company that is about to fail? I think that's rather stupid. Heck, even Chavez wouldn't do that...he took over companies that were MAKING money.
No, if a company is about to fail...let it. No company should be considered "too big to fail".
If things start to go nasty again and new bailouts are on the way, should the "too big to fail" be nationalised instead? :coffeepap
Why would you want the government to take control of a company that is about to fail? I think that's rather stupid. Heck, even Chavez wouldn't do that...he took over companies that were MAKING money.
No, if a company is about to fail...let it. No company should be considered "too big to fail".
If things start to go nasty again and new bailouts are on the way, should the "too big to fail" be nationalised instead? :coffeepap
No, they should be allowed to fail.
No, they should be allowed to fail.
They should be allowed to disintegrate along with every dime of their investors...after that happens to a few of them...Investors will reign these pigs in and make them more accountable...but as long as all the little peoples tax money goes to bail them out...they have nothing to lose.
I believe that you misunderstand what the BULK of the TARP bail-outs was about. These banks were not bankrupt, they had GOV'T backed insurance via Freddie/Fannie for over 90% of the "troubled mortgages" that they held. If they did call the notes due (via gov't backed mortgage insurance) then the taxpayers were still going to "bail them out", it would just have exposed congress for the morons that they are, rather than let congress pretend it was a "banking error", "real estate bubble", or "greedy bankers" that caused the need for bailouts, not simply stupid federal laws, that they had made. Did you not find it curious that not ONE bank was closed or charged with any wrong doing at all? This was NOT due to the action of "greedy bankers", it was due to the actions of DC morons, by creating "sub-prime" mortgage lending laws and then demanding that banks issue these loans, but either way the taxpayers get stuck with the tab. Yes they did!
In a free market capitalist system those too inept to succeed should fail ! Nationalizing these companies would fundamentally change our system into either fascism or socialism both of which will rely more on the capriciousness of the controller. Think US Postal Service but delivering more than just mail !
If things start to go nasty again and new bailouts are on the way, should the "too big to fail" be nationalised instead? :coffeepap
I didn't find it odd at all. Government protects the banks and bankers and wall street investors very well. It's the common man they don't really protect. This was an action due in part to "greedy bankers" for sure. Leveraging so high on a bubble isn't a great idea, and when everyone is doing it it's certainly a terrible idea. And when the bubble breaks, well we see what it comes down to. At the same accord, it is true that this is facilitated through improper government regulation. As they continued to relax regulation, the system broke a little each time and each time we realized some form of scandal or banking problem. And when enough regulations are removed, then we get what we got. Banks and Wall Street left to their own devices with nothing to keep them in proper working order. There's no market incentive for them to stop until the system explodes. Government restriction had kept them in the area of "functional".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?