WSJ Editor Defends 'Too Big to Fail' Banks - David Wessel

[zetasan]

US dollar = dead, the middle class = dead, the poor = already dead, United States = dead, Big Banks = big bonuses. Happy?

[ubuibiok]

Horse Shit...which has even less value the Bull Shit... Banks depend upon Depositors.

He is arguing that we depend upon Banks.

The Banks that got into trouble were and are still full of greedy , thieving parasites and any action that supports there survival at public expense must be resisted at every step.

Vote the "Nasty Bunch Out", a posted reply comment to this will get you an insight as to how bad you have been screwed.

UBUIBIOK

[xwidget]

The roots of the banking problems date from the repeal of laws, many dating from the 1930's, that restricted the risk that the banks could take because of the potential for collapse. Blame congress, while under the control both parties, that "responded" to the banking lobby over the past two decades. As usually happens, the regulators came under the control of those they were charged with regulating.

[hasatum]

Force breakups? You don't have to force anything. These institutions are bankrupt and have been more than once. Just enforce the laws that are on the books and its done. There's not a chance in hell that the Fed would even consider taxing these institutions; it doesn't control them, they own it. Failure must once again be a real option. Regulation has failed and taxation is ridiculous. Real failure must again become an option.

[funkalunatic]

B.S. Firstly, letting the big banks fail only has dire consequences for the large financial sector. The real economy doesn't depend on big banks. The big banks depend on the real economy. Secondly, immense banks and super-global conglomerates aren't some kind of strategic global asset for the nation. The contrary is true. They capture, leach off of, and compete with the government and the public.

[kja5]

Wouldn't the smaller banks just gain the failed bank's depositors and grow because of it?

You know, how capitalism works?

And you can prevent future failures by increasing the required reserves to 25% instead of 10%

[Mastikator]

They need to fail!

[dlucas90]

The Soviets had the biggest "too big to fail" monopolistic government and look how great that turned out?!

[voyeurdug]

Can't he just SAY, "graduated loss reserve?" He's as wordy as a $10 newspaper.

[jchien]

I agree major banking institutions can be too big to fail, just like public utility companies can be too big and too vital to normal functioning of society to fail. Since major banks are too big to fail, they shouldn't be allowed to take massive risks with their financial "innovations" that add nothing to the real economy. Banks must be conservative in investments, with moderate or low ROI (low risk low return), and the government's job is to ensure this.

[zetasan]

As somebody has pointed out, "too big to fail" is a vacuous notion. "They" (including this silly speaker) are talking about it without neither confirming or describing what it really is. The fact is that Obama received a majority of champaign funding from those banks, and so he gives it back with 1,000,000% interest rate.

[Muchodelcrazy]

lol "champaign" funding. Wrong administration, btw.

[freesk8]

I do not believe that the economy would be destroyed if large financial institutions failed.

I say, let them fail.

Smaller banks will buy up the pieces, or take over their business, and win their old customers.

Investors, not taxpayers, should pay when their investments go bad.

The poor will not be adversely hurt by large bank failures.

Let the free market work.

Large, old trees die. They fall, and their decomposing bodies feed new life. This is why trees never get too big to fail.

[bodeezy]

I agree.

The large financial institutions line the pockets of those who make the decisions though.

If only the failure could happen as naturally as the death of a large old oak.

Only the rich would be hurt by these large banks failing. That is why they are not allowed to fail.

[Terrentia]

To the banks in question: 'that are too big to fail'

It is because the US wanted bigger banks to compete with the banks of germany and japan?

So we have this problem now, that some banks belong to an elusive circle, and they can't ever go bankrupt even to the dumbest business decisions. That ain't good. :(

[finallyfreethinking]

The economy is an illusion. The monetary system is only as good as the people believe it to be. There is no such thing as too big to fail. The market would correct the problem if the bureaucrats would simply stay out of the way.

[averageworkinggal]

The market would correct the problem and take down the economy with it much worse than in 2008 without govt. assistance.