Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Congress

In reply to the discussion: #1 - "Too Big to Fail" [View all]

rablrouzer

(66 posts)
2. Too Bigger to Fail
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:42 PM
Nov 2012

No question you're right.

The reason that isn't happening (and isn't practical) is they can only be broken up if they're already financially healthy. Otherwise the small parts would die, separately.

The "rescue" of Merrill Lynch spread benefits in places I'd rather not have them gone. But for sure the investors whose mutual and money market funds would have disappeared benefited a lot.

And short of "nationalizing" ML much as GM and Chrysler were (a hard sell in a country terrified of "socialism," the sad answer to ML was to merge it into an even larger entity, meaning the surviving bank was even "too Bigger to Fail."

As if Bank of America isn't already a zombie.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Congress»#1 - "Too Big to Fai...»Reply #2