• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?


  • Total voters
    37
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Whether the gov't uses bail-outs, subsidies, low interest (gov't guaranteed) loans, tax "loopholes" or special tax deductions/credits - it is all the SAME thing; the gov't playing with or micro-managing the "private" economy using taxpayer money. When the gov't "invests in" or "stimulates" the economy, it is the taxpayers that take all of the risks, yet largely only the politically connected private entities that reap the rewards (if any). Sure, congress and the president will say that it is "good for the people"; but is it really? The gov't building roads is, in fact, investment for the public good (we the people own it), yet selecting Solyndra, Exxon or Bank of America for special treatment is not "public" investment, it is simply gambling public money, for a "guaranteed" rate of return far too low, for the risk involved, to attract any private investment.
 
Last edited:
And Countrywide, along with others who followed similar practices, are just innocent lambs. :roll:
 
"Too big to fail" should never have happened but now should be broken up. Nationalizing just makes them part of failed gov control experiment. The gov is suppose to limit the size and regulate business not get involved in the profit and loss end of it. It isn't gov that controls corporations it's the other way around.


Lobbying Client Total

US Chamber of Commerce $857,015,680
American Medical Assn $269,507,500
General Electric $268,810,000
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $219,393,920
American Hospital Assn $219,214,136
AARP $214,872,064
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $184,878,020
National Assn of Realtors $184,433,988
Northrop Grumman $176,015,253
Exxon Mobil $173,592,742
Verizon Communications $168,984,841
Edison Electric Institute $162,835,999
Business Roundtable $160,310,000
Boeing Co $159,634,310
Lockheed Martin $154,390,388
AT&T Inc $142,039,336
Southern Co $134,740,694
General Motors $130,034,170
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $127,770,000
Pfizer Inc $123,607,268
 
"Too big to fail" should never have happened but now should be broken up. Nationalizing just makes them part of failed gov control experiment. The gov is suppose to limit the size and regulate business not get involved in the profit and loss end of it. It isn't gov that controls corporations it's the other way around.


Lobbying Client Total

US Chamber of Commerce $857,015,680
American Medical Assn $269,507,500
General Electric $268,810,000
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $219,393,920
American Hospital Assn $219,214,136
AARP $214,872,064
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $184,878,020
National Assn of Realtors $184,433,988
Northrop Grumman $176,015,253
Exxon Mobil $173,592,742
Verizon Communications $168,984,841
Edison Electric Institute $162,835,999
Business Roundtable $160,310,000
Boeing Co $159,634,310
Lockheed Martin $154,390,388
AT&T Inc $142,039,336
Southern Co $134,740,694
General Motors $130,034,170
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $127,770,000
Pfizer Inc $123,607,268

What? Corporations can not vote, yet they are heavily regulated and taxed, resulting in regulation and taxation without representation. In order to have a voice they have no choice but to use lobbying "citizens" on their behalf. Perhaps the BEST way to get corporations out of the process of gov't is to get gov't out of the process of micro-managing corporations. If corp. A is given a subsidy or tax break, it is only natural that corp. B will want that too. ;-)
 
What? Corporations can not vote, yet they are heavily regulated and taxed, resulting in regulation and taxation without representation. In order to have a voice they have no choice but to use lobbying "citizens" on their behalf. Perhaps the BEST way to get corporations out of the process of gov't is to get gov't out of the process of micro-managing corporations. If corp. A is given a subsidy or tax break, it is only natural that corp. B will want that too. ;-)

Peddling influence and power to the point they do now is obscene. They're not doing worse but better than ever in history profit wise. GE and some of the larger companies pay little to NO taxes with offshore hoarding and hiding. I don't buy this "poor companies" crap. I also don't believe in over or unfairly taxing them, simply get the gov and corps out of business together.
 
TBTF corporations should be broken up.
 
If things start to go nasty again and new bailouts are on the way, should the "too big to fail" be nationalised instead? :coffeepap

Yes, when a company becomes "too big to fail" it should be nationalized as a matter of national security.
 
Orderly liquidation into some number of smaller entities, kind of like what we do with monopolies.

This. Companies who become too big to fail shouldn't be nationalized, they should just be split into smaller companies that aren't too big to fail.
 
Why would you want the government to take control of a company that is about to fail? I think that's rather stupid. Heck, even Chavez wouldn't do that...he took over companies that were MAKING money.

No, if a company is about to fail...let it. No company should be considered "too big to fail".
 
If things start to go nasty again and new bailouts are on the way, should the "too big to fail" be nationalised instead? :coffeepap

If you mean restricting the size a company can get so its potential fall doesn't impact the country then sure. If a company is too big to fail then its too big to exist.
 
Why would you want the government to take control of a company that is about to fail?

They give the money, so they in a way buy it.

No company should be considered "too big to fail".

I'm OK with that. The government apparently thinks otherwise (they made this phrase anyway). :)
 
In a free market capitalist system those too inept to succeed should fail ! Nationalizing these companies would fundamentally change our system into either fascism or socialism both of which will rely more on the capriciousness of the controller. Think US Postal Service but delivering more than just mail !

I agree with this, except that the bailout made us all socialists already, at least in principle. It was a cooperative enterprise between the banks and government. The financial system absolutely failed, and the banks should have been allowed to fail along with it regardless the consequences, under the rules of capitalism that everyone but them seems to be subjected to, or broken down into many smaller independent banks. It's worth keeping in mind though that Obama stated no more bailouts, at least while he's around. What's unbelievable is that they've taken so few steps to ensure a meltdown can't happen again.
 
Why would you want the government to take control of a company that is about to fail? I think that's rather stupid. Heck, even Chavez wouldn't do that...he took over companies that were MAKING money.

No, if a company is about to fail...let it. No company should be considered "too big to fail".

It is the fastest way to make it not to big to fail. Nationalise it, and break it up and then privatise it.... you know like Bain Capital :)
 
Why would you want the government to take control of a company that is about to fail? I think that's rather stupid. Heck, even Chavez wouldn't do that...he took over companies that were MAKING money.

No, if a company is about to fail...let it. No company should be considered "too big to fail".

Presumably, the government would take control long before the company began to fail, while it was still healthy and functional. This would be the point.
 
If things start to go nasty again and new bailouts are on the way, should the "too big to fail" be nationalised instead? :coffeepap

No, they should be allowed to fail.
 
No, they should be allowed to fail.

They should be allowed to disintegrate along with every dime of their investors...after that happens to a few of them...Investors will reign these pigs in and make them more accountable...but as long as all the little peoples tax money goes to bail them out...they have nothing to lose.
 
No, they should be allowed to fail.

I believe that you misunderstand what the BULK of the TARP bail-outs was about. These banks were not bankrupt, they had GOV'T backed insurance via Freddie/Fannie for over 90% of the "troubled mortgages" that they held. If they did call the notes due (via gov't backed mortgage insurance) then the taxpayers were still going to "bail them out", it would just have exposed congress for the morons that they are, rather than let congress pretend it was a "banking error", "real estate bubble", or "greedy bankers" that caused the need for bailouts, not simply stupid federal laws, that they had made. Did you not find it curious that not ONE bank was closed or charged with any wrong doing at all? This was NOT due to the action of "greedy bankers", it was due to the actions of DC morons, by creating "sub-prime" mortgage lending laws and then demanding that banks issue these loans, but either way the taxpayers get stuck with the tab. Yes they did!
 
They should be allowed to disintegrate along with every dime of their investors...after that happens to a few of them...Investors will reign these pigs in and make them more accountable...but as long as all the little peoples tax money goes to bail them out...they have nothing to lose.

Please see post #43.
 
I believe that you misunderstand what the BULK of the TARP bail-outs was about. These banks were not bankrupt, they had GOV'T backed insurance via Freddie/Fannie for over 90% of the "troubled mortgages" that they held. If they did call the notes due (via gov't backed mortgage insurance) then the taxpayers were still going to "bail them out", it would just have exposed congress for the morons that they are, rather than let congress pretend it was a "banking error", "real estate bubble", or "greedy bankers" that caused the need for bailouts, not simply stupid federal laws, that they had made. Did you not find it curious that not ONE bank was closed or charged with any wrong doing at all? This was NOT due to the action of "greedy bankers", it was due to the actions of DC morons, by creating "sub-prime" mortgage lending laws and then demanding that banks issue these loans, but either way the taxpayers get stuck with the tab. Yes they did!

I didn't find it odd at all. Government protects the banks and bankers and wall street investors very well. It's the common man they don't really protect. This was an action due in part to "greedy bankers" for sure. Leveraging so high on a bubble isn't a great idea, and when everyone is doing it it's certainly a terrible idea. And when the bubble breaks, well we see what it comes down to. At the same accord, it is true that this is facilitated through improper government regulation. As they continued to relax regulation, the system broke a little each time and each time we realized some form of scandal or banking problem. And when enough regulations are removed, then we get what we got. Banks and Wall Street left to their own devices with nothing to keep them in proper working order. There's no market incentive for them to stop until the system explodes. Government restriction had kept them in the area of "functional".
 
If they are too big to fail they should be broken up not nationalized, like Standard Oil. But I think people should think carefully what too big to fail actually means. Does it mean economic collapse or the collapse of certain politicians careers?
 
Last edited:
In a free market capitalist system those too inept to succeed should fail ! Nationalizing these companies would fundamentally change our system into either fascism or socialism both of which will rely more on the capriciousness of the controller. Think US Postal Service but delivering more than just mail !

Generally when nationalized you wipe out shareholders and pay a portion to debt holders and then resell the bank. You nationalize on the short term so that they don't fail.

It's suppose to be an alternative to letting them fail and pummeling the economy as a whole....or giving them money and them getting off scott free and creating the whole "too big to fail" advantage for some institutions.

As for "they should fail"....it's pretty well proven that letting large financial insitituions fail left and right lead to bad things!
 
If a private entity is considered too big to fail and is bailed out it starts to operate as inefficiently as a state owned company anyway. So no loss if it is nationalised, you at least punish the people involved but the essential problem isn't fixed.

They shouldn't be bailed out however, but it seems like many nations have committed themselves to a losing poker hand and keep on raising.
 
If things start to go nasty again and new bailouts are on the way, should the "too big to fail" be nationalised instead? :coffeepap

No- they should be allowed to fail and cease to exist as business entities.
 
I didn't find it odd at all. Government protects the banks and bankers and wall street investors very well. It's the common man they don't really protect. This was an action due in part to "greedy bankers" for sure. Leveraging so high on a bubble isn't a great idea, and when everyone is doing it it's certainly a terrible idea. And when the bubble breaks, well we see what it comes down to. At the same accord, it is true that this is facilitated through improper government regulation. As they continued to relax regulation, the system broke a little each time and each time we realized some form of scandal or banking problem. And when enough regulations are removed, then we get what we got. Banks and Wall Street left to their own devices with nothing to keep them in proper working order. There's no market incentive for them to stop until the system explodes. Government restriction had kept them in the area of "functional".

WRONG. The notion of "sub-prime" mortages was NOT invented by bankers, it was a gov't creation to attempt to allow the "poor" to become homeowners. Bankers reluctantly issued these "gifts", disguised as "low income" mortgage loans, ONLY through gov't pressure and offers of "safety" by the gov't backed "insurance" of these loans. This GOV'T CREATED artificial demand, for more private homes, caused the "housing bubble", having the (unintended?) effect of flooding the market with oversupply, eventually dropping the value of many existing homes on the resale market, placing otherwise innocent home buyers in a position of being "underwater" on their traditional home mortgages.
 
Back
Top Bottom