4 ms·
All of that was a good reason to bail out the banks, but not a reason to bail them out and then not break them up into the smaller banks that they had been, not
by rossdavidh 8y ago
All of that was a good reason to bail out the banks, but not a reason to bail them out and then not break them up into the smaller banks that they had been, not so many years before. The banking industry had just gone through a long series of mergers. That the banks were "too big to fail" was a reason for the bailout, but also a reason to break them up again; only one of these was actually done.
- Latteland 8y agoagreed, we definitely should have forced them to split, but there are limited powers in a democracy (a good thing :-)). Imagine if this happened today.
- marcosdumay 8y agoWhatever the gov does to them afterwards, bailing private companies and not taking possession of them on the spot is a huge failure of the duties of a government with their citizens. Break them apart later, sell them, or keep them for a few years until the economy can absorb them. But I still can not accept how a democratic government can push money at will into private hands and nothing happens out of it.