advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Nobody's listening.

TOO BIG TO FAIL

By
Neal Boortz
@ April 23, 2009 8:30 AM Permalink | Comments (26) | TrackBacks (0)
The government is now considering limiting the size of banks so that they will never be "too big to fail." This brilliant idea comes from FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair. It was only a matter of time, folks. Now we're going to launch a policy that private businesses cannot become so large that their failure would have an adverse affect on our economy. And who gets to decide when a business is too large? Why, that would be the political class. The government. Do we get the chance to decide that government is to large? Apparently not.

Categories:

Tags:

Main Index | Archives | RSS feed

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: TOO BIG TO FAIL.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/28671

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Belinda Skelton, Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • Free markets do not exist for the benefit of shareholders alone but for everyone, shareholders,workers and customers. For the market to be at maximum efficiency, no party can have too much power.

    I like Clark Howard's idea on this. As a bank gets larger its capital reserve requirement goes up.
    By Greg @ 04/23/09 06:48:40 PMreport abuse
  • Too big to fail
    Speaking of Obama's ego...LOL!!!
    By FoxyRob @ 04/23/09 06:11:50 PMreport abuse
  • Good Idea
    This is a great idea, but I want to see it implemented and strongly pursued before I give anyone credit. Letting companies, and especially banks, get so big they can hurt us all or force us to help them is stupid. Obviously, there is the question of what is too big, but with strong legal guidelines (by our democratically elected representatives), as well decent executive oversight (by our democratically, at least in this case, elected president) we do have some control over it. Certainly a lot more than when we let major banks do whatever they want, even when it hurts us.

    Obviously we get the chance to decide when government is too large as well, with our elections. But no significant portion of the population wants a smaller government (especially anti-social services right wingers).
    By Lent Visor @ 04/23/09 04:30:57 PMreport abuse
  • Too Big to fail?
    Does this sound ominously like the "Anti-Dog eat Dog" or the "Fair Share" law to anyone else??? Wanna know how this ends, folks? Read Atlas Shrugged. Today's headlines are right out of that book
    By Going Galt @ 04/23/09 04:16:40 PMreport abuse
  • anti-trust laws
    Most of these laws are feel-good laws that don't really serve the public interest. When the government thinks you're too big or you're not playing by their rules, they whoop out these laws and break you up, costing shareholders and taxpayers (one and the same) $billions which goes straight to the lawyer class. On the other hand, the government may like your work and decide you should be the only one in the industry -- state-sponsored monopoly (fascisim) or they may like the work you do but not necessarily you doing it so they'll just take you over -- state-operated monopoly (socialism).

    See why we free-ists can call you stat-ists socialists and fascists? Join us, you can have it both ways!

    In history, some of the best products came from industries with earned monopolies (Standard Oil, US Steel). The state-sponsored monopolies could sure use some work (passenger rail, drivers licensing. comcast?)
    By Geoff in Berkeley @ 04/23/09 02:59:57 PMreport abuse
  • Large Government
    "Isnt the government supposed to be large?" is the comment posted by Stan. From what I've learned the original purpose of government was to provide protection to its citizens, i.e. Army, Navy, Air Force. Increasing the size of government makes everyone less free, plain and simple. For every government intervention in our lives we are allowed to make one less choice. Unfortunately I'm beginning to realize that a large portion of our country simply isn't capable of living free and thinking for themselves. Many people would rather the government decide for them. I'm pretty sure I read this on here somewhere the other day, and I liked it. Our founding fathers fought a revolution in order to live in a world free of an oppressive, tyrannical government. Why would they give their lives if the goal was just to establish another large, oppressive, overbearing government here in America? It doesn't really make sense to me.
    By concerned @ 04/23/09 12:51:25 PMreport abuse
  • wrong
    You're wrong on this one, Neal. Its a good idea so we are not all held hostage with future TARPs, and we DO get to decide if the government is too big with our votes. That's how Reagan got in. Only problem is now most people do not care about the government getting bigger and the majority votes for guys like Obama.
    By MRT @ 04/23/09 12:49:32 PMreport abuse
  • Equalization of Opportunity Bill
    Direct from Atlas Shrugged.
    By Steve @ 04/23/09 11:47:05 AMreport abuse
  • Businesses Too Big to Fail?
    I am not in favor of this but could perhaps be persuaded if:

    We can add amendments to the Constitution that would explicitly and with no ambiguity whatsoever limit the federal government to the parameters originally intended unless a specific written amendment is added.

    Specifically that would include amendments to require original interpretation by the courts with a provision for strict adherence by the legislative and the executive branch to separation of powers and to the amendment process (no more making it up as you go along),

    A limit on the % of GDP that could be borrowed or taxed away from citizens except for dire emergencies where 2/3rds of the House and Senate agreed to a temporary increase,

    Repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments,

    And return to the gold standard or establishment of strict limits on money supply growth.

    You have to admit it’s tempting.
    By gxm @ 04/23/09 11:02:02 AMreport abuse
  • 2 big 2 fail
    With great power comes great responsibility. Any company deemed "too big to fail" should have its key officers AND Boards of Directors personal assets at risk if failure occurs. Maybe reckless behavior might change? This doesn't cost taxpayers anything.
    By Steve A. @ 04/23/09 10:49:43 AMreport abuse
  • "Who's John Galt?"
    By The Appalachianist @ 04/23/09 10:17:49 AMreport abuse
  • TOO BIG TO FAIL
    Government needs to look in the mirror. We are big government now and headed for bigger government. How big do we have to be to realize that we are a failing?
    By Laughing @ 04/23/09 10:13:54 AMreport abuse
  • Gov't is too big to fail!
    Our gov't is too big too fail, so it should break itself up into smaller peices .. and sell it off to the private industry.
    By Chris @ 04/23/09 09:59:06 AMreport abuse
  • Too Big To Fail
    Neal, wake up. Think about when AT&T were mandated to be split. This is just a more overt continuation of the same government BS.
    By emers @ 04/23/09 09:40:12 AMreport abuse
  • Try not to
    lose sight that it's not that any business is too big to fail, it's that when the government sticks their noses into that business is when it's subject to and usually does start having problems. Usually due to some kind of regulation. Had the Imperial US Guvment not gotten involved (fatty may and fumbling mac for example), the housing market, the banks and the stock market would probably be just fine today. Leave capitalists to do what they do best and we all prosper.

    End the Fed
    Fair Tax Now
    Abolish the IRS
    By JoeShmoe @ 04/23/09 09:39:52 AMreport abuse
  • The FDIC?
    The same one that awarded a contract to Feinstein's husband?

    Yeah I know, repeating myself. But that just really irritates me.

    Anti-trust laws should be enough if it's enforced. We don't need MORE regulation.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 04/23/09 09:26:34 AMreport abuse
  • FDIC
    It's absurd that anyone in the government would ever be smart enough to figure out the magic number for "too big to fail." Is $1BB enough - $6BB?

    Anyway, if the FDIC had done what they are SUPPOSED to do as an INSURANCE entity - which is RISK MANAGEMENT - they would have been a lot more concerned about credit quality in lending than they were about political correctness in lending and none of this would have ever happened.

    The government regulators inspect what they expect - and for the past 15 years they have only been concerned that we were making enough minority loans. Period. Let's not put the very people who caused the problem in charge of fixing it.
    By DG in GA @ 04/23/09 09:25:44 AMreport abuse
  • Limiting corporate size
    When a few corporations control a majority of the money flowing through the world economy, yea, I think they sure as hell should be limited. Same goes for industrial superpowers. Too much of anything can and should be considered bad, and in this case, 3 choices exist. 1] reinstate the regulations which Clinton removed, 2] force any such corporation that controls more than x% of money to split into separate corporations, 3] 1 and 2.

    The idea that letting a corporation grow infinitely simply because it's the libertarian/free thing to do is a bit scary. Any one of these smaller spin-off companies can self-destruct without fucking up the rest of the economy.

    That's what I think damnit. Our current instance of Government sure isn't helping much, but then again, it's simply not smart to get into a position where your failure can devastate a large portion of the world economy.
    By Jason @ 04/23/09 09:18:53 AMreport abuse
  • Supposed to be
    Isnt the government supposed to be large? That seems to the the problem in any country that is in anarchy right now.
    By Stan Gable @ 04/23/09 09:17:14 AMreport abuse
  • Then it must be time...
    Ah, then it must be time for the government to pass the "Equalization of Opportunity Bill"... lol!
    By Humbug @ 04/23/09 09:14:09 AMreport abuse
  • Glass Steagley Act
    It is silly to oppose this, it was the law of the land until the late nineties, even though it was being circumvented. The financial protections that were put in place after the Great Depression (Glass Steagley) were replaced with the Sarbanes Oxley Act and we are where we are now partially because of it.

    Check out Frontline's story titled "The Wall Street Fix".
    By Nathan @ 04/23/09 09:09:40 AMreport abuse
  • We should have something like...
    ...anti-trust laws to keep companies from being so large that if they gain a monopoly on the market they can't cause drastic effects on the country when they get into trouble. Oh that's right. That is already in place. I guess under the Obama presidency (and to an extent the Bush presidency as well) nothing can be regulated enough. Having redundant policies is always a good thing for businesses to have to deal with. After all redundant policies to prevent things that are already illegal (ie. Sarbanes-Oxley Act) have done so much to keep companies in line so they don't do things that are bad for the country.

    I guess our government forgets when Microsoft and AT&T were so big they were forced to split up under the current anti-trust laws in order to prevent any failure by them to cause drastic economic problems.

    We are going to be saved by the mighty power of goverment who I just know has our best interests at heart...
    By Pete @ 04/23/09 09:06:40 AMreport abuse
  • Doesn't this law already exist?
    I was under the impression that we already had a law preventing a bank from making any acquisition that would result in it holding more than 10% of national deposits.

    Title 12, 1842 -

    The Board may not approve an application pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) if the applicant (including all insured depository institutions which are affiliates of the applicant) controls, or upon consummation of the acquisition for which such application is filed would control, more than 10 percent of the total amount of deposits of insured depository institutions in the United States.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00001842----000-.html
    By Goalkeepr @ 04/23/09 09:01:40 AMreport abuse
  • I do not see the problem with this at all. The interstate banking act was a good thing and was there to prevent just this thing. I remember when Clinton had it repealed, I thought that eventually this would be "not good". Ditto on the elimination of Glas-Stegall.

    They were lessons from the depression and there for a reason.
    By Beeks @ 04/23/09 08:59:57 AMreport abuse
  • Socialists
    It is unfortunate "the people" are so ignorant they do not realize how far down the road we are to communism with the inept socialists currently in power.
    By Dark Overlord @ 04/23/09 08:56:40 AMreport abuse
  • Too big to fail
    Bye bye walmart!
    By Wayne @ 04/23/09 08:54:09 AMreport abuse
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement