Why dont they just take apart all of the companies that are to big to fail

Discussion in 'Economics' started by mahram, Jul 30, 2009.

  1. ................................................................................

    Good post....

    Add ....

    Structural tax changes....15% C Tax only

    Eliminate the two party lobby system

    Exchange that is not gameable

    Establish a base Govt. med insurer

    Eliminate legal largesse

    CHANGE THAT MATTERS....
     
  2. imagine the outcry from the right wingers. i can hear it now. obama socalist destroying america.
     
  3. But then where are all the M&A fees going to come from?
     
  4. What is interesting is that even "Bernanke" gets this one....

    But as usual....does not have the capability to describe a solution....

    M&A coins add up....and diversify....
     
  5. I have the impression that the gov't thinks it is easier to control "too big to fail" companies (and in some ways it might be).

    The gov't doesn't want to be messing around with a bunch of rinky-dink mom and pop businesses. (high barriers to entry)

    Socialism in the guise of "economies of scale".

    Is Wall Mart currently a company that is "too big to fail"?
     
  6. In Canada there are just 5 big banks. ANd maybe 10 very small.

    And they say here Canada's banking system is the best because it's easier oversee what banks do as there are not many

    Maybe they want to have the same in the USA?
     
  7. Welcome to Bank of JP Sachs Mellon.
     
  8. well to big to fail without significant political power. Meaning either they dont have friends in treasury or friends in key political seats. But I just dont get why they just dont tear down these companies if there to big to fail, make them smaller, if all of these companies dont want the government messing aroiund with how they make money. Like gs, they dont want deritive reform, leverage reform, they dont the government limiting them only clearning house trading products, etc It doesnt make sense.