Too Failed To Be Big

I am posting this in U.S. Political Madness, even though it is inspired by an article I read today in Huffington Post titled:

Warren Buffet: "Too Big To Fail" Will Never Be Resolved

Buffett, who is personally worth at least $45 billion, told the government panel charged with investigating the causes of the financial crisis that its work would not prevent the phenomenon of "too big to fail." "You will always have institutions that are too big to fail, and sometimes they will fail," Buffett told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in May, according to Bloomberg. His recorded comments were released Thursday by the FCIC, Bloomberg notes. (You can read the full set of FCIC documents here.)

Buffet might sound buffoonish and annoyingly arrogant if it weren't for the fact that "Too Big To Fail" flies in the face of U.S. Anti Trust Laws:

Free and open markets are the foundation of a vibrant economy. Aggressive competition among sellers in an open marketplace gives consumers — both individuals and businesses — the benefits of lower prices, higher quality products and services, more choices, and greater innovation. The FTC's competition mission is to enforce the rules of the competitive marketplace — the antitrust laws. These laws promote vigorous competition and protect consumers from anticompetitive mergers and business practices. The FTC's Bureau of Competition, working in tandem with the Bureau of Economics, enforces the antitrust laws for the benefit of consumers.

Reasonable minds might be inclined to assume that the Federal Trade Commission's claim that they are enforcing anti-trust laws would mean that they are doing their part to prevent companies from becoming "too big to fail". After all, the so called "free and open market" the FTC alludes to requires massive competition, and the reason for massive competition is so that the inevitability of business failure will not be felt on the aggregate economy, and only felt much more locally, ideally limited to the proprietor of the business, his/her family and the customers that relied upon that business. The overall economy would not feel the loss of small business, and not really feel the loss of mid--size businesses, and even large businesses in a field where the competition is massive.

Of course, the FTC has no intention of enforcing anti-trust laws, nor do they have any regard for a free and open market. A free and open market is an unregulated market, and the FTC is a regulatory agency. They could, if they weren't so corrupt, be simply a regulatory agency that enforces anti-trust laws and maintaining the basic tenets to a free and open market, but this is not how ambitious career bureaucrats work. Free and open markets are for actual producers and hard workers, not for the effete snobbery of economists who have never had to run a business, and most never even had to get their hands dirty, like...oh say Robert Shiller, the "Yale" economist quoted in the Huff piece:

"What we've seen so far is not going to eliminate the problem of systemic risk, because it's a very difficult problem. It involves the nature of the banking system, which is inherently vulnerable," Shiller said. "It's vulnerable to runs and collapses, just like steam engines are vulnerable."

Shiller deserves the Jean Paul Zodeaux "So Duh!" award this week for stating the obvious...but, if it is so obvious that banks are vulnerable, then why would we allow banking systems to grow to be "too big to fail"? Why would we tolerate for nearly 100 years now, a Federal Reserve that demands cartelization of the banking system?

Buffett, for his part, made a successful bet that the government would bail out the financial sector. His firm injected $5 billion into Goldman Sachs during the worst of the crisis, as part of a highly lucrative deal. Buffett's preferred stock earns a 10 percent dividend annually.

When people profit off of failure because they advocate government bailouts at the expense of the people who pay the taxes to facilitate this dubious practice, what are we to think of this?

"Too Failed to be Big" is a tee shirt slogan waiting to happen

Although I recommend that you copyright it before it's on the back of Ron Paul's shirts.

I have a simple answer as the poster above stated,RON PAUL 2012. Jean Paul you've done it again,your posts are simply amazing,please pm me when you leave ats as I'll do the same. Dead on the money again as usual,they're not too big to fail they're too big for the elite to stomach to fail, it matters not to us poor folks. As a matter of fact it benefits us should they fail for it levels the playing field.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


"Steam engines?" There's the problem right there. Way antiquated POV.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Greetings my friend! S+F 4 U!

As usual with your posts I can never bring anything else to the table except for props, you usually say everything I think when I read your next line!

How sweet it would be if we could not only get a real free market but blow up the patent office while doing it. Eh? Haha

-Lightrule

Originally posted by 9Cib27
"Too Failed to be Big" is a tee shirt slogan waiting to happen

Although I recommend that you copyright it before it's on the back of Ron Paul's shirts.

This is the quot


Yes Hurry and get this patented. This is the SLOGAN of the YEAR..

The term "ponzi scheme" used to apply to a few Wall Street crooks in the '80s.
Now, "ponzi scheme" precisely describes the whole Banking, Federal government establishment!
So explain how can a report from this ferderal commission be helpful to America's future?
About as helpful as the 911 Commission...Scam...
Jean Paul Zodeaux, you are brillant! S&F's Sir!!
"Buffoon-et" indeed...Warren...