Posted on 05/03/2015 1:17:50 PM PDT by Lorianne
Oh no, all of that was fixed after the bailout. A congresscritter said so on the radio.
What we have is Fascism. And "too big to fail" describes an ugly New World Order.
That it is -- if a bank or any other business knows it's considered Too Big to Fail, it knows it can do literally anything -- engage in any practice -- and the taxpayers will bail it out -- again and again and again.
We must abandon Too Big to Fail. Let the chips fall where they may.
If it's Too Big to Fail, it's Too Big to Succeed.
That house of cards has been being built since the inception of the Federal Reserve, the so-called independent government agency.
Yeah, many believe just that. Don’t worry, someone will be along to tell us all is just fine.
We must regulate them down to a “won’t hurt the rest of us if they fail” size.
More specifically, since the states had mandated in the Constitution that the states were to use only gold and silver for legal tender (1.10.1), the Senate should either have killed the Gold Reserve Act bill, or should have led Congress to propose an approprate amendment to the states for issuing paper currency.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear along with a bunch of corrupt senators.
Could you imagine what things would be like w/o central or government banks. It’s been so long that no one can conceive of such a solution. We always talk of more and better regulations, but where has that got us?
Private banks could still engage in fractional reserve lending under some form of oversight in addition to market forces. Governments would still have a treasury and take in taxes.
The market could devise instruments that would work as currency and subsystem for PMs if necessary.
The only reason to have central banks is to give central bankers control.
The populist solution would be to do what progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt did: break up big businesses. Fight monopolies, which threaten competition.
He broke up Standard oil, and yet the parts continue to this day as some of the largest businesses in the country and world (Exxon, Chevron, Mobil).
I would like to listen to a Republican candidate describe why we should end the era of “too big to fail” organizations, in several industries, like banking, motor vehicles, oil & energy, retailing, communications & entertainment, Pharmaceuticals etc.
Take note that Comcast recently backed down from their acquisition of Verizon, because they feared regulatory forces might deem the merger a threat to competition.
The obvious solution for conservatives is simple: “If a corporation is ‘too big to fail’, then it is likewise ‘too big to continue’.”
In past, the courts have said that size alone is not a good enough reason to bust up a corporation. This idea must be reassessed. If a corporation is so large that its failure could significantly harm the economy as a whole, then an orderly, methodical means must be legislated to reorder that corporation until it is no longer a threat.
There is no inherent unfairness to this, except for the loss of power of a handful of people on a given corporation’s executive board. And that is no reason to not do this.
much balderdash here
Palaces of ponzicians...debt slavemasters digitizing, printing, and doling out the pieces of cheese for us rats on the treadmills. UNaccountable totalitarians with monopoly money, enticing the unsuspecting, devaluing the responsible.
Too big to fail: The psyops of psychopaths.
The basic depository banking system of the US should be conservative, staid, boring and safe. High risk investments should not in any way be tangled up with our basic banking system. Those who want greater risk and greater possible rewards should have their own investment firms which are totally separate from depository banks.
That is the conservative way in banking, not some anything goes, high risk, regulation free gambling house that endangers our entire financial system and everyone who uses depository banks.
.
Yup!
Whatcha gunna do about it?
.
bttt
You're being kind, I'd have used a different word beginning with "b". This article is to economics as Al Gore's movie is to meteorology, pure mindless politics. There's no science to global warming and there's no economics in this article..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.