House Bill Would Give Federal Government The Power To “Dismantle” Companies That Get “Too Big”

Because according to Obama, if banks and financial companies think they’ll be bailed out it will encourage risky behavior. So obviously that means we need to give the government the power to “dismantle” them. So they don’t become too successful.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Tuesday embraced a House bill that would give the government unprecedented power to seize bank holding companies and other large financial firms teetering on the brink of collapse and stick their competitors with the cost.
In a letter to House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, Obama said the belief among financial executives that the government would ultimately protect them creates a “perverse incentive” for large firms to take reckless risks.
“Taxpayers simply must not be put in the position of paying for losses incurred by private institutions,” Obama wrote in the letter, obtained by The Associated Press.
Under Frank’s proposal, a council of regulators would be established to monitor financial firms regarded as so big and influential that their collapse could bring down the entire economy.
If the council determines that a firm has grown too big and dangerous, the Federal Reserve could step in to dismantle it. Firms with more than $10 billion of assets would be responsible for covering any outstanding costs of that action.

This is dangerous territory we’re entering. The government can simply take over, break up and sell off any company it deems to be too big?
If these liberals are oh-so-worried about the expectation of bailouts inspiring risky behavior among financial institutions, then why don’t they stop the bailouts? No more “too big to fail.” If they fail, so be it.
Nothing encourages good behavior like consequences. Consequences in the market are what we need. Not more government interference.

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://Array sayanything-3165

    I’m not going to be very popular for this, but here it goes…

    I’m not totally against breaking up some of these companies. Too big to fail is too big, period.

    What I do have a problem with is the government coming in and saying, “We don’t like what you’re doing, CEO and VPs, you’re gone. Here’s some new guys for you.” And that is exactly what Frank is proposing. Also he wants more strangle-hold regulation that is just a smoke screen for government control and appointing who they want to run the companies. Can you imagine GM, Ford and Chysler relocating to New Orleans in return for a political favor? How much would you pay for a car then?

    Frank also wants the stockholders responsible. I’m PERFECTLY ok with that. Every time I buy a stock I know that I might lose my entire investment. That’s part of investing 101. But don’t tell me what I can pay my CEO. That’s none of your business Mr. Frank.

    But too big to fail is too big.

  • sayanything-9974

    I thought the only business experience Barney Frank could claim was the Escort Service ran from His house by his boyfriend. Barney Frank should cite examples where he was right about something before he escorts us down any other path. Start with the 2004 Fannie and Freddie warning that were dismissed out of hand by his commitee. This guy is a real life, walking characature of the problem with DC. What an arrogant, pompus, glittering jewel of collosal demagogery he represents.

  • sayanything-9974

    Break out the BullSh*t repellant maybe. There is no business to big to fail – if they fail then too bad. Welcome to the business world. They can make room for a company that can turn a profit and stay in business. I do like the idea of reducing the size of government. It is not to big to fail either. The bigger it gets the bigger failure it has become.

  • robert108

    There is a big difference between real free enterprise and the govt either helping or hindering the market, con.
    I notice neither you nor Carrick dealt with my example of the computer industry.

    In the free enterprise system, only govt has absolute power. Companies have to compete for our business and our money, whereas the govt just reaches into our pockets and takes our money.
    Govt control is the problem, not the solution. Beyond setting basic rules that apply to all equally, govt should stay out of markets, especially in the respect of trying to engineer outcomes.

    It doesn’t really matter when that bill was passed, only that is was passed at all.
    The result is less competition, which is to the detriment of those who want to buy insurance.

    BTW, the Constitution doesn’t, in general, separate power(s); it limits the power of govt.
    Within the limited govt, there is a separation of powers among the three branches, but there are no separate powers regarding the States or the people.

  • brain trust

    I think it is time to dismantle a government that is getting too big. We can start by voting out all of these clowns, starting with this election.

  • http://www.2plus2equals5.net/ winston smith

    i read this thing online, and it had a commenter who said something….well, i’ll let you read it.
    http://dailyreckoning.com/legislating-too-big-to-fail/

    the commenter said,

    TC said

    “make it easier for the government to seize control of troubled financial institutions, …”

    I don’t get it. TBTF, by definition, is when a corporation is already big enough to buy control of the politicians and regulators who, presumably, has the TBTF power to shut it down. So the TBTF power will never be used against the TBTF! But I suspect it will be very useful against corporate and political enemies, thus ensuring the real TBTF will grow even bigger!!

  • robert108

    Monopoly means “one seller”. Period.
    In a free market(free of coercion and with freedom of entry and exit), monopolies, when they occur, are brief in duration. The increased profit margin attracts competitors, and the “one seller” is replaced with many sellers, lowering prices and increasing choices. Only the govt can create and sustain long term monopoly.
    It’s the absence of real competition that results in monopoly, not the absence of govt.
    Take a beginning econ class, con; you might learn something.

  • http://www.2plus2equals5.net/ winston smith
  • robert108

    rbb lies a lot; like, always.

  • sayanything-51

    Raygun broke up AT&T.

    How did that work out?

  • robert108

    As far as the breakup of AT&T is concerned, its monopoly was enabled by the govt in the first place, and the breakup has enabled tremendous progress in communications. The main benefits have been a result of returning ownership of the grid to the people who paid for it.

  • sayanything-352

    You’ll note that rbb ‘conveniently’ hasn’t been back since slapped down with the AT&T-DoJ slapdown? Jeez, is that all it takes–to wave an incontrovertible fact under his nose? If only I’d known sooner…

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    A large government is far more dangerous than a large bank or telephone company.

    And to reinforce the ATT thing, it was finally settled in the courts during the Reagan years, but by the time RR came to office it was all but over.

  • sayanything-42

    sparkless needs to stop huffing…

  • sayanything-2407

    House Bill Would Give Federal Government The Power To “Dismantle” Companies That Get “Too Big”

    Does that include the federal government?

    It seems to be ‘acquiring’ businesses and acting like one. Can we start by dismantling Congress?

  • robert108

    They don’t “collapse” in a free market, C. A great example is the market for personal computers. The first company to offer one had a monopoly, and it benefited society, because it created a market. Soon afterward, the popularity and profits attracted many competitors and we all benefit from that, as well. Computers keep getting better and cheaper, with more choices, because there is very little regulation at the level of the functioning of the market.
    There are different sorts of regulations, C; some have to do with quality(consumer protection), and generally tend to benefit both producers and consumers. Others have to do with enforcement of contracts and business agreements, and are also beneficial. The harmful ones are the regulations that attempt to manage outcomes, which is what this administration wants to do, with predictable negative results
    Trying to use the economic system to produce predetermined social outcomes just doesn’t work, as every collectivist State illustrates quite nicely.
    Even the chicoms need some free market mechanisms to pay their bills and feed their people.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    Wow. rbb has time to natter on about whether Greece is in Asia Minor in the forums, but isn’t man enough to own up to his mistakes here! Maybe the headline wasn’t convoluted or childish enough for him?
    Whither thou goest, once proud flaming lib?

  • robert108

    Carrick: Here’s a thought exercise for you: What if the govt had stepped into the personal computer market, and had drafted regulations and taxation to favor the first company, so that entry into the market was inhibited or even made impossible. Do you think we would have the situation we have today? Think about it.

  • robert108

    If there was ever a more perfect statement as to why no real American should ever vote Democrat, Barney has given it to us.

  • Brent

    “This is dangerous territory we’re entering. The government can simply take over, break up and sell off any company it deems to be too big?”

    Yeah, but they’ve done this for a long time. Any time a company gets too big and isn’t “spending” enough money in DC, the company just happens to come under the scrutiny of regulators, particularly the Justice Department’s Antitrust division. But it all goes away once the company learns to “play ball”…

  • sayanything-3165

    That’s a big 10-4.

  • sayanything-42

    I don’t believe Teddy would have much time for a racist troll like Robert “blackwaterboob” Moran.

  • sayanything-51

    I guess I’ll have to break out my Teddy Roosevelt hat and Bull Moose buttons.

    I wonder if I still have a copy of A Contract With People.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    The breakup of AT&T was initiated by the filing in 1974 by the U.S. Department of Justice of an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T.

    Care to reconsider that last statement, boob?

  • robert108

    “One group controlling all of the oil would be a bad thing.”

    So, you’re against Obama controlling our domestic oil production, then?

    Monopoly still means “one seller”, no matter how you try to twist and spin.

    Some of your examples are really examples of “oligopoly”, which means “few sellers”, and has its own problems. One oligopoly that has worked until the govt stepped in was the domestic auto industry.

    Again, take a basic econ class, and then you might have something meaningful to say.

    To repeat for the slow, neither monopoly nor oligopoly can exist long term without the help of govt. Open competition yields the lowest prices, best service, most choice and best supply.

  • sayanything-12

    Somewhere between zero regulation and total regulation lies the optimum, defined in terms of maximizing the net positive impact on society and the economy, between too much and too little interference between the government and the business.

    I don’t agree that the optimal lies at zero regulation.

    Even if monopolies are transient phenomena, as Robert108 suggests, and I would go further to say they often are created by government interference with the marketplace to begin with (not a lack of real competition, but a prevention of fair competition due to governmental misrule), it still isn’t necessarily in the best interest of society to allow them to form and watch them collapse.

  • sayanything-4204

    Dismantling America–How far President Obama will go depends on how much resistance he meets. â–º THOMAS SOWELL
    Natl Rev Online

  • sayanything-42

    LtM,

    Robert “blackwaterboob” Moran, the self convicted and unrepentant racist and SAB troll has never shown a propensity to remain shamed…

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    Effective January 1, 1984, AT&T’s local operations were split into seven independent Regional Holding Companies, also known as Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), or “Baby Bells”.

    But to say that Reagan “broke them up” (unless he was a member of the DOJ in ’74), meets boob’s high standards of accuracy.

  • sayanything-101

    Fidel Castro already did this. How did that work out?

  • sayanything-4808

    If that’s your opinion then please justify it with rational analysis laying out both pro and con for that breakup and please take into account their role internationally and how the US is supposed to compete with foreign nations who do not break up their large institutions.

    In case it has missed your glue addled brain, foreign banks are buying ours at a good clip, and they aren’t breaking up theirs. In fact if the current trend continues, the USA will be relegated to third world status when it comes to intercontinental multinational business operations in another fifty years.

  • sayanything-7134

    monopoly: This word has various significations. 1. It is the abuse of free commerce by which one or more individuals have procured the advantage of selling alone all of a particular kind of merchandise, to the detriment of the public.
    Rob on the radio said that too much power concentrated corrupts. Then he goes on to say Companies should be able get as big as they want. Which one is it Rob, too much power whether company, gov’t, individual is dangerous. Period.

  • sayanything-13047

    I would like to some up this whole article in one word “COMMUNISM”
    Webster defines communism as 1: social organization in which goods are held in common. 2: a theory of social organization advocating common ownership of means of production and a distribution of products of industry based on need.

    Think about it, is this really what we want our country to look like?

  • sayanything-81

    this is not dangerous territory. we need anti-trust laws. its dangerous to not have them, as we have seen. your position amount to corporatism or fascism Rob, and you know it. no way in hell your little idol Jefferson, would approve of this crap opinion of yours.

    they need to break up. i don’t know if the government should do it, but they should all make plans and submit them pronto.

  • sayanything-7134

    If that is the case be happy that as Suite said the govt is the largest monopoly. Monopolies are a good thing according to you.

  • sayanything-7134

    monopoly can exists as trusts, cartels etc. One group controlling all of the oil would be a bad thing. It can be regional. One company controlling the healthcare in a state is not good.
    A group of railroad men use to controll transportation. The operating phrase would be”one or more individuals have procured the advantage of selling alone all of a particular kind of merchandise, to the detriment of the public.” TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE PUBLIC> They control the product so their is no competition. Try again skippy

  • sayanything-4808

    What world are you from?

    It was broken up long before Reagan.

  • sayanything-4808

    Government is the ultimate monopoly and thanks to a somnambulant public and a piece of paper which the political class wipes its ass with whenever convenient, they can enforce that monopoly by expropriation, imprisonment and execution.

    Name one big company that can write rules on you that are binding and have absolutely no recourse to a higher authority which can detain you, arrest you, kill you. Name one that maintains a standing army, a similar army of paramilitary forces controlling the civilian population, and extorts from its customers as much money as it can squeeze out of them under threat of use of those powers.

    You can’t.

    Given the choice between the two, I’ll take a business I can buy into, compete with, and which cannot simply do away with me when I become inconvenient.

  • sayanything-7134

    They can’t exist because gov’t is helping them but you don’t want the gov’t to hinder them either. Take one side or the other. I think carrick has it right. Control must be exercised someway if the premise ‘absolute power corrupts’ is correct. The beauty of the Constitution is that it seperates power.
    I would like to know when the bill was passed that stopped competition across state lines for insurance companies. Anti trust laws don’t apply; Why, when and what was the reasoning they gave for needing this protection.

  • sayanything-1317

    I forget who made the quote that “Any company that can form a monopoly for more than 6 months is to be commended”, but he’s right. It is next to impossible to form a monopoly period, much less give it lasting power. The only way any company could accomplish this, without government help, is by providing far better services than everyone else combined at better prices. In the short term, this is a miraculous accomplishment. In the long term, it is indeed a tremendous accomplishment that should be celebrated, not booed.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development