Now let's not be TOTALLY reasonable, CircuitGuy!

(Good point, in other words).

"The government's role should be slow parachute to auctions, redistribution to the those willing to buy the assets, particularly small business."
I wish the business managers would purchase option and insurance contracts to do that, so the gov't didn't have to. I think they will rise to the occasion if they know no gov't parachute will be provided.

I would have allowed them to fail. Failure is a good thing. If you never failed, you're not attempting anything difficult. People learn from failure. All those investors, employees, vendors, and customers would have come away strong. And if they think they wouldn't, they should have structured things less risky.

I don't mean to sound harsh. We're not talking about someone dying. This is a business closing. Businesses come and businesses go in a cycle of creative destruction.

Politicians and bankers are way too full of themselves about how important the finance industry as it stands today is. We need a way to allocate capital, but if one institution fails, new ones pop up.

A true free market is already rigged to fix itself. It does not need a Bush or an Obama to throw money at it. Government needs to get out of the way and only worry about fixing itself.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/th...

Stockholders are not among the first to get the remains of bankruptcy proceedings.

YES, it is called market clearing. Some lose, some win, but the real loss isn't passed on to the Tribute Slave. Why ? Because it is unethical for speculators to pass their bad decisions to the backs of TRIBUTE SLAVES!!!

Government bailouts are the death knell of Free Enterprise. When select groups, that favor any administration, are withheld from the fallout( UAW etc) now Capitalism is the victim. I've been with Ford dealerships since 1974 and am proud of the way a family controlled company handled this last crisis. Many of you have pointed out that if they had gone down, someone else, with a better business plan would have filled the gap. You are correct. There would be some pain, but it would let the next company be wary of bad decisions, for they would know that it's "do or die". The situation is similar to the illegal alien problem. As long as they get a "bailout" they will keep coming. Who is John Galt? We are John Galt! See you all on Sept 12!

As I recall back when being "Too Big To Fail" was en vogue, what they were really saying was they were "Too Big To be Allowed To Fail" for the betterment of the economy. Sometimes I wish they'd have pushed the lever and let them circle the bowl.

Of course, let them fail. Why should we taxpayers pay for there inability to stay solvent? Actually, it's small businesses that employ most people and contribute the most to society. If the economics in this world weren't so screwed up, it would be better to say that a business was too small to fail. But as the lady with the restaurant found out, it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil, even though the silent wheels keep the cart running.

yes, and the gentleness is provided by the capital
retention aspect of a capitalist society -- business
will sustain the capital value of property and trained
employees by putting them to work, making more
in a different way. our current monster unemployment
is a direct result of gubment bribing people to remain
out of work. with the minimum wage and the
various welfare systems, we prevent people from
living inexpensively in YMCAs, with a job. I did,
for a bit. not bad. -- j

p.s. ever see the western stage logo of "Body
By Fisher" on the threshold strip of an old GM car?

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=body...
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=body...

p.p.s. I was a dj for 50 years. one day, I found
that a friend at work was going out of the business,
and I bought some of his gear. worked well for
hundreds and hundreds of people!!! no gubment
required. it let him down gently.

yes. no enterprise is too big to fail. consider the
United States. we -- or they, more properly --
are proving this right now. that an aig or a gm
could fail is a subset. Yes, our national security
depends on a healthy industrial base, but gubment
subsidies and control are Not the way to maintain
such a base. those who think so are delusional. -- j

Yes to both questions. A business model or operation that can't generate enough profits to pay it's costs has no worth to it's owners or society in general. It is a leech on all other properly run businesses and the individuals of the community. Saving it only prevents one of the better attributes of a free market -- constructive demolition.

I think it would have done wonders for the competitive construction of automobiles in the US for the biggies to have failed. It would create an ecological vacuum and released a lot of business-forming-techies (kinda like tech 'viruses') who would design better cars 'in their garage' (or in small startup businesses); this is where innovation takes place.

Jan

Good Point, which is why I say the advocate of a theft is morally worse than the actual thief.

I said stock, perhaps it was bonds. All I know is he worked hard many years to provide that for his family, and it was gone in a puff of smoke.

You expect that to some extent with GM stock. But with bonds ....!

It was worse than theft. When a thief takes your possessions, at least he has the decency not to taunt you as he is taking the possessions away like Obama's minions taunted and threatened my parents.

The knee jerk reaction is "Yes, in a second".
That's good - that's the ethical response.

The realistic answer is "No, in a few months".

The government's role should be slow parachute to auctions, redistribution to the those willing to buy the assets, particularly small business.

Let them fail - carefully. There will always be uses for the assets unless it is a failed and obsolete industry.

During the advent of the automobile industry violent arguments ensued over an industry that was failing and loads of public money was spent to avoid having that industry fail and a collection of other industries that depended on that one industry.

Wagon making.

Folks, let it fail - gently.

There is such thing as, "bail out failures, get even bigger failures later." This is what created. "Too big to fail."

I hate your premise: that anyone other than the business owner has any part of the decision about the success or failure of that business. Who has the right to say whether or not a business is "allowed to fail"? Only the owners of that business.

Why limit t to Obama. How many have supported policies that were justified on the Greater Good?

A pretense of economic policy covering a political philosophy that sanctions theft for the benefit of the politically connected.

It's called theft, but it was for the greater good. Altruists of all strips believe the greater good is valid justification of theft, they just disagree over who should be the beneficiary.