4 ms·
People want to get all pissy about this, and come up with all kinds of contrived punishments for the offenders. I’ll grant that this is an awful looking situati
by awinder 7y ago
People want to get all pissy about this, and come up with all kinds of contrived punishments for the offenders. I’ll grant that this is an awful looking situation, but the most cost effective thing we could do is just learn the damn lesson finally. Don’t give companies money in boom times, keep it around for when a true unexpected disaster strikes. It literally requires no work, no new bills, just a memory that lasts a little bit and some introspection.
- mdszy 7y agoDoesn't take much contriving really, guillotines are simple enough.
- nicbou 7y agoThe problem as I understand it is that those large companies hire thousands of skilled workers, and are often the only source of employment in some regions. If they go under, they bring a significant segment of the population with them.
- Nasrudith 7y agoAnd how is that different from thousands of small businesses who went under with nary a peep? Of all of the others who put their eggs in one flimsy rotten basket? The way I see it too big to fail is always just special pleading furiously rationalizing from being spoiled by status. There is no logical reason to give them special treatment in spite of all of the stupid human hierarchy tricks. I see it no different than demanding that a rich kid who killed someone driving drunk be treated as "making a mistake" and anyone else as "proven an irredemable waste of human life". The only sane and just thing is equal treatment. Either everyone can get bailouts or nobody can. The favor for a few approach doesn't work morally or practically - just producing more spoiled nitwits who can and should be replaced. There are no redeeming circumstances or grand sacrifices on their part to justify special treatment.