5 ms·
> There are numerous ways we've discovered to do so post 2008. All of them bad. Companies should fail and keeping bad companies alive via artificial means is b
by oska 7y ago
> There are numerous ways we've discovered to do so post 2008.
All of them bad. Companies should fail and keeping bad companies alive via artificial means is bad. You get zombie companies and eventually a zombie economy (see Japan).
(And "Too big to fail" is a phrase meant to identify a problematic ideology, not a bailout excuse).
Boeing failing doesn't necessarily mean that the USA loses their technology and production facilities. It does mean some substantial losses to investors in the company, but that should be part of the risk of investment.
- mehrdadn 7y agoI don't think the parent was endorsing this approach. It seemed like the opposite to me.
- TuringNYC 7y agoCorrect. I'm the parent. Not endorsing this. Just accepting the reality. Most off our TBTF bailouts were unnecessary in my opinion, or if actually necessary, the bailouts were insufficiently punitive to investors. Most of it comes down to the political power and DC influence of the company management.
- dirtyid 7y ago>Too big to fail Maybe too strategically important to fail is more apt.
- honestoHeminway 7y agoYou loose the technology over time due to - to big to flail. Meaning huge fonds, that buy up whole industry, establishing invisible monopolies, and preventing real competition, except with outliers who are not under theire control