If we have corps too big to fail?

[uscitizen]

Should we not make taxes so they would penalize large corps for merging with and buying out their competition?

 

[eflatminor]

That, or reject the bullshit idea that any corporation is "too big to fail".

 

[Jarhead]

That, or reject the bullshit idea that any corporation is "too big to fail".

there is no corporation too big to fail.
Sure, many may get hurt if one fails....but it was their choice to allow that corporation to play a major role in their lives.
But large corporations have been failing for decades.

 

[g5000]

It is easy to understand why an industrial company needs to be regulated when it comes to the toxic waste it produces. You can't have them dumping drums of poison into abandoned lots where it then seeps into the water table. The belief such a company would properly regulate itself is not only naive but ignorant of the reality that such companies have a history of doing that very kind of dumping.

When it comes to the toxic products produced by financial institutions, the dangers to society become too abstract for the average person to comprehend. When a broker-dealer is allowed to leverage themselves to the stratosphere in order to produce billions of dollars of ticking time bombs, we cannot afford a regulatory hands-off attitude.

The problem is that the Invisidible Hand has the memory of a goldfish, and so we need to regulate the care and feeding of that goldfish.

We already see widescale evidence that Wall Street has already forgotten the lessons of the recent crash. I doubt they ever learned in the first place since the government did not allow them to suffer the consequences of their mistakes, thereby ensuring during the next crash we will be talking about Too Big To Save institutions.

Not all regulations are bad, though you would think so when listening to the rabid ravings of people who don't know the first thing about financial derivatives. If someone believes the CRA was a factor in the global derivatives bubble, they have disqualified themselves as a cogent participant in any discussion of world finance.

When our lawmakers don't know up from down or an inverse floater from a savings bond, then we are going to get some bad regulations, and Wall Street will be able to create loopholes in the law big enough to drive the next global meltdown through.

Dodd-Frank did not even begin to properly approach the regulation of the destructive instruments which brought down the world's economies. So the next meltdown is inevitable.

Brace yourselves.

.

 

[Shelzin]

Should we not make taxes so they would penalize large corps for merging with and buying out their competition?

The only business that the government should have in business, is stopping monopolies. If a business is too big to fail, it's already failed at it's only job in that sector of government.

 

[Shelzin]

That, or reject the bullshit idea that any corporation is "too big to fail".

I too believe that any business that fails... Should fail. And failure should never be rewarded outside of a lesson learned.

 

[waltky]

First dey's too big to fail, now dey's too big to prosecute...

Holder: Banks May Be Too Large to Prosecute
March 6, 2013, Here’s an unexpected addition to the long list of people who say large banks may be too large to prosecute: Attorney General Eric Holder.

In recent weeks, critics have amped up a longstanding criticism of the government’s response to the financial crisis. They argue that regulators and prosecutors were too shy about pursuing criminal cases against banks. Mr. Holder defended his agency’s track record in testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. But he conceded that the economic impact of a conviction could be so significant that cases are difficult to pursue.

“I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them,” Mr. Holder told lawmakers. Prosecutors, he said, must confront the problem that “if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy. And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.” Mr. Holder, however defended his agency. Federal prosecutors, he said, have been “as aggressive as they could be, brought cases where we think we could have brought them,” he said.

After the hearing, the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, issued a statement calling Mr. Holder’s remarks “stunning.” Mr. Holder “ recognized that in effect, the big banks and their senior executives have a get-out-of-jail-free card,” he said. Mr. Holder’s comments highlight a dilemma the Justice Department has wrestled with for years. The department at times has shown a reluctance to prosecute companies even when they aren’t large systemic players in the financial system. That’s because of the potential collateral consequences of a prosecution, including the concern that damage from a company’s indictment could cause innocent employees to lose their jobs.

The 2002 criminal conviction of accounting giant Arthur Andersen for work related to Enron Corp. was a death sentence for the company. The Supreme Court later overturned the conviction in 2005, but by that time the firm was effectively defunct after losing its license to practice.

Source