153 votes
I disagreeRank163
Idea#1125
We were all sold snake oil recently with the so-called government financial bail-out. The main reason stated for this bail out was that some companies are just "too large to let fail". WELL, if that is true, then these companies MUST be broken up into smaller pieces.
Companies need to be limited in size and scope so that if they fail they will not "bring down the whole system".
There is no such thing as "Too Large to Fail". Though breaking up the government into much smaller pieces may be a thought.
jbristor, citizens have far less power over the actions of large companies than they do over the actions of government. At the same time, said companies often affect the lives of citizens far more than the government. The focus should be on keeping the government in charge of companies, and not the other way around.
That's not how it is suppose to work. We are a Constitutional Republic that protects the rights of individuals. Citizens shouldn't have 'power' over other citizens or legal entities. You want 'power'? Join that entity as a shareholder or don't buy their products as a consumer. Having 'power' over companies in the way you desire is infringing on the individual rights of every citizen you chose to be a shareholder.
I am against government interference in the marketplace with the exception of correcting/ preventing the classical market failures (monopolies, negative externalities, etc. If companies cannot stay in the black, let them fail. Once this happens, it would be in the failing companies' best interest to dismantle their company and sell it off piece by piece. You get smaller organizations without the government intrusion. Perfect!
Are you asking them to just let them go bankrupt? What do you mean by "force"?
"Are you asking them to just let them go bankrupt? What do you mean by "force"?"
I think he is hinting that we need newer rules when it comes enforcing regulations against monopolies. That maybe they should also apply to conglomerates that have there hand in everything, so that their failure would me lots of damage throughout the economy. So that we aren't stuck propping up a company like AIG because their failure would send shockwaves throughout the economy.
The biggest challenge to big companies is for government to get out of the way and let small companies do what they do best. Regulation usually helps big corporations at the expense of the small.
Patents and copyright were designed to help small innovators, but they end up just protecting the big companies.
Wish I could vote 10 times for this!
Companies only get too big to fail when they have government backing. Mortgages were government guaranteed, so insuring them was a sure thing -- until people quit paying.
Free markets really are the best -- but with government guarantees to back STUPID behavior they are the worst.
I agree with jbristor. There is no such thing as "too large to fail." The market will always be able to correct itself, if given enough time. And we already break up monopolies so this seems rather redundant.
The government has no business extending money to corporations unless it is a purchase.
Think about the dis-service you'll get by hundreds of small companies making cars, your community having it's own telephone company. It may sound good until you have to live with the limitations.
"Bryan Rosander 1 day ago
Report Abuse
The biggest challenge to big companies is for government to get out of the way and let small companies do what they do best. Regulation usually helps big corporations at the expense of the small."
I think we would agree that regulations are skewed towards bigger corporations, but where we part ways is that we just let it be the wild west. To think that less regulation means fairness ignores the power that corporations wield with their power and influence, and to think that if we took off the reins and let them do whatever they wanted somehow smaller companies would benefit. I don't understand that logic at all. What I would say is that we need to regulate the power and influence that corporations are able to wield in politics and the market and bring more fairness for the smaller companies. It takes balance, planning, imagination to do it well, not disengagement.
"lindatift 20 hours ago
Report Abuse
Think about the dis-service you'll get by hundreds of small companies making cars, your community having it's own telephone company. It may sound good until you have to live with the limitations."
I think you are making it sound like if everything isn't a conglomerate that it is thus mom and pop running a small business out of their home. As long as there is some uniformity across them, standards of production, standards of operability and service. I don't see your argument of how we are better served by companies that haven't delivered the cars or service that many of us desire, and how we would be less served with more choices.
How will a small car company making model x being made say in Montana be able to service the car they make to the Florida car buyer? Maybe you would like to see U.S. car companies go total out of business and lets just bring in cars from foreign competitors. Lets send all our money to Japan and China I Think that is what has been happening over the last thirty years and that has caused lower wages, more U.S. commerical property being bought up by foriegn countries (Japan 1980's), and know they will own our banks (China 2009). Foreign competion in America means Foreign ownership of America.
That would be redundant. Once a business gets big is no reason to fail it. A big company can operate in a manner that is compatible with good business practices the same as a small company. However no company shoud be allowed to dominate any particular market, as in a monopoly. The problem is government interference with a policy of to big to fail. Get government out of business and through competition the market place (a real free market) will take care of it.
I agree with you we need real free markets. The problem is there is no such thing for American products in other countries. Got another grat ideas?
The internet is largely unregulated and allows most of the goods we produce in the US to be sold. What more do you want?
Looks to me that,that is just what happened today the government has broken G.M. the too "big to fail car company" to the "hope we make it car company". Hope it doesn't hurt your neighbors who's job just may depend on the auto industry in this country, hope it doesn't inconvience your car buying by making you have to drive a conciderable distance to purchase you next car, hope this countries manufacturing sector can remain strong. Life is good for some and worrisome for others.
What is the real reason American auto companies are failing? Let's aee. Is it really that people don't want the cars they were making, or is it that the government and the fed ruined the economy and people can't afford them any more? As I see it the fed is to big to exist, its missmanagement is the root of all our economic ills. The government is to big and far reaching in its current state, and has failed the people and industry alike. The auto industry is a victim of government a orchestrated financial crises, not the other way around. Sound money and a truly free market is the only way out of this mess, and, the bottom line is that the fed is not to big to exist, it is to big and corrupt to exist. All of Americas ills are money related that have rolled over into manufacturing. End the fed and put a sound money system in place and we will recover, fail to do so and god help our descendants.
I agree with you that the dollar is the almighty god!,but we don't really have free trade. The only way we will truely have free trade is if American's are will to work at the same pay as the Chinese. Until the time where we are willing to give up our air condition homes, health care, and a prosperous life we will never have free fair trade. So American's will have to choose do we look at where an item is made before we buy and put are brother and sisters out of work or do we save a dime/buck on the items we purchase. Do we keep the money in our country or send our money over sea's.
Almost all of the talk about re-regulating the financial sector has centered around restoring the Glass-Steagall restrictions which prohibited any one institution from acting as both an investment bank and a commercial bank, or as both a bank and an insurer.
That seems, to me, to completely miss the point. Dozens of small financial institutions with cross-sector interests have failed without causing so much as a blip in the US economy.
The problem with CitiGroup, AIG, et al, isn't that they have their fingers in too many different areas of finance, it's that they are too large. The loss of any one of them threatens the entire system.
There are already anti-trust laws on the books. Those should be enforced more scrupulously and, where necessary expanded.
Whenever companies merge it should be asked what the impact will be on the US economy if the combined entity were to fail. If it would endanger the system or require a bailout, then the merger should not be allowed.
This should apply to *all* companies, not just financial ones. Too big is too big.
Every industry has regulations. The problem is no one takes them serious. This is how this country got where we are today. Bankrupted.
The one causing the most problems was actually the government itself, getting too involved. They encouraged these corporations to break the existing rules with special legislation.
I disagree Bryan. If the government got as involved in policing business as they are the little guy we would see real responsiblity in business. Until then we are all at the company we work for mercy.
When the government gets involved in business, it institutes draconian regulations which destroy the industry.
If you do want a regulated industry, look to professional organizations and non-profit organizations to perform the regulation and auditing.
I agian disagee Brian, non profits are no better than any other business, their Boards are full of their friends and family. There is no diffence except only a few at the top gets the better pay, Oh that is just like any other business.
The advantage of this is that people and businesses can ignore their requirements. Private organizations can adjust to the market with improved regulation much faster than the government. It also allows other systems to compete.
I'm fine with this being handled by a business as well, but usually those standards become specific to that business.
Copyright © 2013 IdeaScaleFeedback Software
| Widget | IdeaScale Privacy Policy
Powered by IdeaScale
Social Web