You really need to watch the whole thing or read her book when you can find the time. I am not sure what you find objectionable in the words you quoted, but fear that since you have no time to understand them in context, that you might be reading something into them that is not there.
I realize you may not have the time today but please consider taking the time soon in your off hours to listen to this woman’s speech at the link.
I don’t know enough about the markets to say with authority that she has ALL the answers..but I can say that she is on the right track if we truly want to save capitalism from Wall Street and Washington. Her answers are what I consider fiscal conservative solutions under our present circumstances. Fixing ‘too big to fail’ is not going to happen overnight and neither is stopping our government from manipulation and intervention of the markets. She goes further in doing that faster though in her solutions than any person I have ever heard talk on these matters.
I would also recommend that you find time today to read what we are headed to if Obama and the democrat’s ‘fiscal fascism bill’ passes:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/28/financial-fascism/
I might also recommend you read Atlas Shrugged if you haven’t already.
If you are demanding fixing “Too big to fail” you are asking somebody to keep financial institutions artificially small.
Look at it this way, we have 20 widget making companies, everybody needs one for everyday life.
And they all have about the same market share, nobody with more than 10%. So if one widget maker goes down, there’s a disruption in the marketplace but it evens out pretty quickly.
Now let’s assume WorldWideWidgets has great management, and take 12% of the market through superior widgets, marketing, distribution. Flushed with cash, they look around for opportunities, they decide to stick with what they know and buy a few smaller Widget makers. With the acquisitions they grow to 25% of the market.
These moves don’t go unnoticed by their rivals. GlobalWidgets & U.S. Widgets realize they have to do something, so they merge and take 20% of the Market.
This freaks out the National Widget Company and makes a move of buying up whoever is left, leveraging themselves to the hilt. National ends up with 25% of the market as well.
Has any company done anything wrong? No. National has the most risk, but sometimes in business you need to take a risk to succeed.
So now let’s assume, a perfect storm, Both National & WorldWide screw the pooch and go belly up fast, like announce they’ll be shutting down within two months. 50% of the suppliers vanish. For the remaining companies to increase production to meet those needs will take about a year. Without the widgets, there will be rioting in the streets. There will be panic.
Should the government step in now to keep the companies afloat until the widget production can be stabilized?
Or would it have been better for the government to say no to WorldWide initial attempts to dominate the market through acquisitions? And force WorldWide to either invest in other sectors or return their profits to their shareholders. Or do we limit the amount of Debt that US Widgets can take on?
Or are you willing to take your chances in the great Widget Panic of 2010?
Look, I agree with Nicole Gelinas. How do you reduce the size of banks? You saw her video, tell me what she said. She wants to go revisit the deregulation fad of the last 30 years and find out where we went too far and go back to re-regulation. I want that as well.
The goal for any new regulation needs to accomplish the following.
1) More Financial institutions
2) Smaller Financial institutions
How do we accomplish that? What has worked in the past was government regulation.