Too big to fail?
- Thread starter ruffryder
- Start date
to big? or....too big? 
Wikepedia says the following so it must be the right answer;
Too Big to Fail is a phrase referring to the idea that in economic regulation, the largest and most interconnected businesses are so large that a government cannot allow them to declare bankruptcy because said failure would have a disastrous effect on the overall economy.
Too Big to Fail is a phrase referring to the idea that in economic regulation, the largest and most interconnected businesses are so large that a government cannot allow them to declare bankruptcy because said failure would have a disastrous effect on the overall economy.
maybe, but that definition just states that they are too big to fail because bad things will happen.
What are the bad things? Why? How big is big?
S
snowmobiler
Well-known member
urban dictionary...
Too Big to Fail
A turd, that by itself, is large enough to clog the toilet without the use of paper, possibly needing to be broken up with plunger etc.
Too Big to Fail
A turd, that by itself, is large enough to clog the toilet without the use of paper, possibly needing to be broken up with plunger etc.
just cut off the "to fail" part and there is your answer
I think most know what is meant by this phrase concerning big business, especially in recent times.....GM, some banks, our own govt....all being handed big $$ from outside sources to keep afloat would otherwise cease to function.
What are you thinking.....I know your getting at something here
What are you thinking.....I know your getting at something here
I think most know what is meant by this phrase concerning big business, especially in recent times.....GM, some banks, our own govt....all being handed big $$ from outside sources to keep afloat would otherwise cease to function.
What are you thinking.....I know your getting at something here
I don't think GM was too big to fail in the same was CITI bank is. The government didn't want GM to go down, because they are a very large supplier of jobs in this country, and because they could easily invest in it, then get their money back. GM could have gone down and we (the economy) would have survived, just worse off.
As for CITI bank, what would happen if it failed? Why is it considered too big? Maybe we should back up and look at this question, when banks fail, how are they taken over?
Definatly not my area of expertise.
I do know there are alot of signs of failure for many years prior that everyone sees (both from inside a business and for those looking in) that are typically ignored because it's the "easy" thing to do....nobody wants to be the party pooper when profits are rolling in although they know it will lead to collapse....this goes for biz, banks, govt...and the results are always the same. Until greed is replaced with self control it doesn't matter if it's your household finances, banks, govt or whatever....failure in the long term is the result. Our society seems (IMO) increasingly more and more short term oriented....pleasure today and worry about the pain after it hurts.
It's hilarious (in a sick way) watching our govt grilling bank officials and blaming them personally about the things they (the govt) were fully aware of happening for decades....there was just too much $$ and power involved for anyone to put a stop to it and risk them not attending their $40,000/plate fundraisers.
Ok...I'm getting off track
I do know there are alot of signs of failure for many years prior that everyone sees (both from inside a business and for those looking in) that are typically ignored because it's the "easy" thing to do....nobody wants to be the party pooper when profits are rolling in although they know it will lead to collapse....this goes for biz, banks, govt...and the results are always the same. Until greed is replaced with self control it doesn't matter if it's your household finances, banks, govt or whatever....failure in the long term is the result. Our society seems (IMO) increasingly more and more short term oriented....pleasure today and worry about the pain after it hurts.
It's hilarious (in a sick way) watching our govt grilling bank officials and blaming them personally about the things they (the govt) were fully aware of happening for decades....there was just too much $$ and power involved for anyone to put a stop to it and risk them not attending their $40,000/plate fundraisers.
Ok...I'm getting off track
You would of had to be on it first... lolOk...I'm getting off track
I guess I am not looking for the political reasoning of "too big to fail" more of a technical reasoning. Do you guys think there is one?
If not, why?
S
sledheadjake
Well-known member
I think the term TO BIG TO FAIL is just a term that some one thought of to save their a$$.There is a reason why businesses fail and go under, poor product, poor management, over pricing and the list goes on.When a company dies there is usually another company that rises up to do the same thing and some times for the better.I still find it a joke that the govt pays these companys money to save thier bacon but if my business or your business needs a little help it is nowwhere to be found.just my .02
C
Chubby
Active member
There was no reason to bail out anyone let the pieces fall there was plenty of smaller banks that where in good shape to pick up the pieces. The olny reason the bailout for gm was there to protect the union workes that voted for The head ****** in charge. The othere where bailed out because they had alot of money invested by tge people in charge of this country. The bottom line is the small Business and average person again pays for the rich.
Do you know how that actually works?
You take your $$ and investments to another bank??....at least that's what plenty of people I know did with Wamu.
Too big to fail was just an excuse to pump billions of bailout dollars to private companies. Someone got rich off it, and it wasnt you or I.
I meant more in the likes of how a bank is taken over. Your Wamu example happened before or after the bank was taken over?
B
B C
Well-known member
Just to clarify, the economy and jobs were not why the government bailed out GM. The ONLY reason they did was for the UAW. As you stated, the economy would have survived and they knew that.
Rick Wagoners' original plan submitted to the Govt. was to file bankruptcy(w/ Fed $$), and restructure ALL contracts. Union, dealer, suppliers, creditors, etc. He was fired by Rajmahad Obama within days.
I'd apologize for getting off topic, but I don't think I was there to start either.
Too big to fail is BS.
Last edited:
