Thread: I supported "too big to fail"

Originally Posted by Daybreaker

Presuming that we keep violent revolt on the back burner for now, are there any other practical options?

Create an unholy alliance of the tea party and the occupiers?

In other words, violent revolt becomes the most practical option.

A show of force would probably be sufficient. There wasn't all that much violence when Teddy Roosevelt busted up the trusts.

Originally Posted by Daybreaker

Darnit. Sounds like another one of those riddles that can only be solved by convincing people with power to have less power.

In other words, violent revolt becomes the most practical option.

Presuming that we keep violent revolt on the back burner for now, are there any other practical options?

So are you advocating some sort of violent revolution?

Of course, the claim of "more job losses" is being made by the same people who created the job losses in the first place. Bad investment decisions have to have consequences for bankers and brokers just like they have for you or me. Right now, they have no skin in the game and can walk away with pay raises and bonuses just as long as they get the money out.

Originally Posted by Phoebe Bump

Now I don't. "Too big to fail" is a license to get too big and to fail too much.

The big banks should be broken up into neighborhood block size with the assets of a Baskin-Robbins franchise.

I completely agree. Let's make them "too little to do any damage".

Originally Posted by RtWngaFraud

I completely agree. Let's make them "too little to do any damage".

I think the American people are TBTF. Unfortunately, we get squat.