CNBC is showing him at Congress now. It’s turned pretty much into kabuki theater: somebody asks him how something like this could have happened so quickly, how can any one of many companies be sufficient to collapse the nation’s financial system, and he just stumbles out a meandering response (not an answer) that invariably includes all the phrases “long time in the making”, “international repercussions”, “interconnected” (the new way of saying “too big to fail”), the senator thanks him for his answer, and then the next senator takes his turn on the dance floor.
It’s pretty simple how one bank could lead to many other failures, at least in this country. The nanny-state education has set in and some people don’t know how to use the john without government intervention. Had the government allowed such a company to collapse under the weight of its own mismanagement, people would have panicked and done even more damage.
Because massive and largely pointless regulatory burdens have forced the consolidation of certain types of financial business into a few huge institutions, so that they can manage the regulatory burden through economies of scale.
Anybody who bought Bear stock not too long ago at $150 a share knows that, in fact, it did fail.
If that's the case......then we are much worse off than they are pretending.
That way the gov can skim its cut and the polticoho's can smile telling the public that 'the economy is just fine'?
Seems to be the case in the the US needs an economic scheme on paper to manage its debt since w e manufacture little more than charts and food for domestic consumption.