"Too big to fail" my butt.

United States
November 13, 2008 6:06pm CST
Lets run through some logic, shall we? Lets think about all the major industries in this country. *nods* Go ahead now, think of them all. We've got media, phone companies, credit card companies, financial companies, law firms, the auto industry, starbucks, walmart, etc, etc. Now think about how big they all are, and all the industries that rely on their purchases WITHIN this country and without it. Now think about how anything could go wrong in the near future at any time to throw them into chaos to the point where they could fall into oblivion. First, we were told that so many of our banks had gotten so fat that if they fell our whole system would collapse. But then, we realized that there were quite a ew gigantic industries in this country that if they fell they'd send an even bigger domino effect than the banks. We knew, going into this whole crap, that we'd possibly hurt ourselves terribly trying to "save" all the banks. Now, we're told, that these other companies too might "have" to be saved. The obvious conclusion you can draw from this is that there's not enough money to save all of these things. There's too many of them for picking and choosing to work, and there's not alot of ways to create some sort of criteria to narrow the field because regardless of what you do...it will hurt the economy, which combined with other factors could help it continue down the dark path it's been on. Certain things could accelerate this whole process -- without your ability to foresee, anticipate, or prepare for. With me so far? Okay then. Now lets move onto the deeper logistics. There is no such thing as "too big to fail". Throughout history, gigantic empires have fallen. Empires with awe-inspiring and often terrifying amounts of power for the eras they were in. If these things could fall, why couldn't a company or bank that has it's tendrils wrapped around a world? So, to move onto the meaning that people should just right out and say...people MEAN that they don't think these things SHOULD fail. But why not? Almost every one of these cases, these companies or banks had it coming to them. They weren't smart enough to see the writing on the wall, they were corrupt, greedy, uncaring for their fellow man...rolling in orggasmic luxury and marvelling at their own illusions of power. What they told themselves, was that they could take shortcuts, they could cheat and hurt people..and get away with it. "We're too big, too important, to fail." Such ego certainly is astounding, especially when they preach a belief in a system which says that, "You either wise up, adapt with the times or you drop out." I understand the sympathy for those who lose their jobs. But if you've such faith with the idea this economic system was founded on, then certainly something will come up to give you a different job. Perhaps you need to create your own. A focus on your local economy, the "fill a need" thing, was what this economy started on. Of course I don't want anyone to lose their job. But the methods you'd have to use -- which everyone's beginning to see, doesn't really help a darn thing -- aren't worth it. I know, I know...I'm lecturing people again..._ I just had to say it.
1 person likes this
10 responses
• Australia
14 Nov 08
Democracy - government of the people, by the people, FOR THE PEOPLE. Rescue packages are designed to soften the blow FOR THE PEOPLE, and if they incidentally soften it for the greedy managers along the way, so be it. If enough of these companies fail, economic Darwinism be damned, then the Great Depression will look like a Teddy Bears' Picnic. Lash
1 person likes this
• United States
14 Nov 08
Dearie, I'm not against helping people out or leveling the playing field (or battleground). Softening the blow, leveling, and buying time does actually help. However, the way these bail outs are designed (I can't agree that "rescue" can be applied to them, and "designed" can only loosely be used here)...it doesn't really do alot of softening or time buying, or anything good really. Basically what it ends up doing is choosing who gets to keep their jobs and for how long with blind eyes to the surrounding factors and little ripple effects it sends off. It allows those who did wrong to take a juicy chunk and leave us in the dust, if they're smart enough to realize that's exactly what's been handed to them. It does nothing to address the problem itself, which since it's continuing WILL make the Great Depression look like a teddy bear. Gaurding against miracles, of course. Like I like to say is this: When your village is attacked by a dragon, slashing at its scales blindly does very little good. Sometimes you might manage to distract it, but eventually you WILL tire and what then? To save your village you have to kill the dragon and to do so you must stab it's heart, but you have to find the heart first. Elsewise, it'd take a miracle to stop what will come to pass if you fail.
1 person likes this
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
14 Nov 08
I believe fully that businesses should fail, we the people should not have to pay for their failures. We didn't invest when the company presented their business plan to the bank and investors, so why should we now?
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
14 Nov 08
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Miss Paranoia, you should step back and re read the title of your post..... Anyway, now that I'm not laughing too hard to type. I'm all for economic darwinism. If it fails, it is because it was a model that was designed to fail. One could make the "too big to fail" argument for almostany industry or person or group. Where does it end and how much of our tax dollars are to be poured in to these companies. It has done nothing so far, why would another one or another 10 bail outs help.
• United States
14 Nov 08
*solemn* It was the "logic" bit, wasn't it? *sheepish face* I do tend to forget how little logic is actually used in big government measures O_O *head-desk* I'm glad you got a laugh, xfahctor =)
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
14 Nov 08
"Regarding the title, my butt is getting bigger every day, and it should not be allowed to fail!" ROFL!!!!! awe man, this is just too much fun. Well, if we all get our buts together to form a bank, (bank of but?) we can get a collective piece of the bail out pie. Not exactly sure how money will keep our buts from failing, other than visuals I just won't bring to the for front, but what they heck, BAIL OUT BANK OF BUT NOW!
• United States
15 Nov 08
*solemn face* Because butts everywhere need some of that dough, yo.
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
14 Nov 08
Well many people have argued that because these companies are now global giants that we dare not let them fail. I was one of them but now I am no longer so sure. I am totally opposed to the massive salaries their CEO's and executives get and maybe they should bail out their own companies. I have said on other posts that if these companies go under then the entire world will be hit with a global depression that will hurt everyone. I do not know if the is a bad thing or not. I will not just be the jobs of the administration people it will be every company that relies on them and their credit debts and so on. A snowball effect. If the government just backed the banks and let the others go under I do not know what would happen but maybe we could restructure the entire world's debt. Wipe the slate clean and start all over again from scratch.
• United States
14 Nov 08
You make a very excellent point, Sharra...and one I'm not sure everyone's thought about yet. If they can afford to give themselves all these nice things (the bonuses for example)...then why can't they chip in to save themselves? *ponders* On the flipside, if you've enough power to take down the world with you...you should have the ability to turn things back the other way, as well. The reason why I argue against the too big to fail, point (which you illustrated much better than I could, I tend to sound more dark and that sorta ruins a conversation about this) is because there are too many big corporations, banks, etc...which have their hands in too many things which could all end up bringing us to a depression. There's too many of them which may "need saving". Which is one of the main points to what I believe is the problem with the bailout. It's likely that we'll get to the point where we'll have to make impossible choices with limited funds. I say this because already that's what Congress is talking about. I DON'T think that a depression is inevitable, I do think there are solutions...but I don't think it's so easy as just giving people/banks/corporations more money (because that doesn't address why they were failing in the first place. It's treating the symptoms, and not the disease itself). I like your skepticism though, I think that keeps things real and you don't get too caught up in the message. *prefers people to make up their own minds on things* The economy, being a part of our lives...is made up of alot of variables -- like you said, a snowball affect. Ripples. Any single thing that changes can do this. Big corporations and banks failing is just one of the loudest, flashiest, and quickest way to go in the same direction. If the other factors remain, then it still goes onto what we're all fearing. Just at a more average pace. Wiping the slates clean and restructuring -- well, our own economy at least, I think would be a good idea. I don't doubt that it'd be highly complex in accomplishing but...I think it'd be worth doing. It'd give us a chance to study what went wrong and what we can do to prevent it from happening again...not to mention that it could help save alot of people alot of stress and tears.
1 person likes this
• United States
15 Nov 08
I wonder too. it can't be that terrible in comparison to doing nothing, or sticking with this, I'm sure.
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
14 Nov 08
The trouble is that they would never do it. But there are some countries that are so deeply in debt that they are at the mercy of the world bank who come close to running the country. The people there hate it. If it was my country the temptation would be to declare yourself bankrupt and start again. If the whole world wiped the governments debts and started again what would the ramifications be. I wonder what would happen.
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
14 Nov 08
It certainly boggles the mind. Sometimes business fails and it should. This bank rescue idea I find especially unnerving.
• United States
14 Nov 08
*agrees* I think it's a little crazy that these companies are so afraid to fail as well, on top of the general blah-ness of the bailout idea. I mean, how the heck did they get where they are with such a paralyzing fear of something that naturally happens, especially during economic times of turmoi? And besides, half of them have enough money to be set up for life because they were so successful. "WTF are you afraid?" I wanna ask them, heh.
@evanslf (484)
14 Nov 08
One could certainly argue that nothing is 'too big to fail' and that we should let even the biggest banks go to the wall. The problem with this approach is that it could lead to massive collateral damage: say one massive bank is allowed to go to the wall, all the shareholders in that bank therefore lose all their money, all the depositors in that bank lose all their money (or quite a few do as they will have put in more in deposit accounts than what is guaranteed by the govt), then small businesses that had their capital invested in that bank lose all (or most) of their money, etc. What happens? Depositors in other banks start to panic as FEAR starts to take hold, they withdraw their deposits en masse causing the collapse of other banks. Shareholders also start to panic, they sell their shares en masse, seriously threatening other banks viability. Small businesses who have lost their capital go to the wall, people are thrown out of the work, and thus by not saving one bank, we could precipitate a much greater crisis. Indeed, history tells us this is what happened in the 1930s, a number of banks were allowed to go to the wall, this made the Depression far worse than it need have been. Of course, I am far from happy that we have to bailout these banks. I reluctantly agree to it for fear of something worse, but I am determined that we should not reward failure. All CEOs and boards of banks that have failed and that have to go cap in hand to the govt for a bailout, must be made to leave their posts immediately and they should be replaced, no ifs and no buts. And of course, bonuses and pay for senior executives, etc must be stringently curtailed - the message must be clear that the party is over for these incompetent greedy fat cats! I also agree however that a line has to be drawn somewhere. We can't keep on bailing out every organisation. Why are we bailing out American Express for example, they are not a bank? Nor can we bail out every business either, or we are in danger of simply rewarding failure and allowing them to continue on their loss making ways. But that said, the bailing out of the banks, but only with stringent conditions, is I think a necessary evil in view of the consequences that I have described above.
@mariposaman (2959)
• Canada
14 Nov 08
I thought this might be a diet thread about your your know... I do not know why governments think it is such a good idea to give public money to private individuals that could not manage the money they had, and we are going to give them more, and it turns out with few strings attached.
@zhangfzoe (432)
• China
14 Nov 08
Financial crisis made many people lose their jobs. Some can find a new job very quickly. I feel the pressure and start to prepare for the future. But what I can do now is working harder and studying more. I feel tired. Guys can you share your response to what you're doing now to get through the financial crisis?
• United States
14 Nov 08
Oh wow, I can't believe I read the whole thing! LOL!!! You'd probably enjoy the movie Zeitgeist Addendum which is at www.zeitgeistmovie.com . Some institutions are to important, if not too big, to fail. If they run out of money, no problem! We'll just print more for them. Happy Mylotting!
@didi13 (2926)
• Romania
30 Aug 11
It is said that adaptation is the first form of intelligence, and history the entire planet becoming a show with the measurement. Did not survive than species that have adapted ... The world is changing and we must tip over beliefs, habits, hopes, her own pace. The adaptable go forward, the versatile go from a conviction in another, and although we all should admire those who are able to keep up with the times, there is a reticence, a reluctance, a condescension that floods our eyes directed by those who have succeeded. And yet, we admire those old-fashioned. Those who follow the principles above requirements with respect time I sit down with emotion, the heart and history logs. Love or even respect the dinosaurs that were left scattered times, while the slugs who fofilat among cataclysms have not only contempt. We miss the blue blood families and thin, even if we know that were scattered between eras, between impotence. Craving snows of yore, although it is clear that melted because they have not been able to become eternal. However, if adaptation is the sign of intelligence, stability, constancy, eternity seems to be eternal marks of noble souls. How we adapt to our world when we're hungry, not to guard, after the old days? What odds is our way forward when we are, nearly all, eyes turned, watery eyes to the past? What changed us to be forgotten in others? It is very important to be flexible. Adapting our environment and situations where we are, supravetium and live in harmony. Adaptation means less stress, more pleasure and satisfaction of life. And history shows that only has adapted to man, has reached this stage!