Too Big to be "allowed' to Fail?

[Phred42]

Too big to be governed by Capitalism, the Free Market, or, the law?

To me, this is exactly the argument to break up ANY company that is, or might develop into this position. If you're too big to be allowed to fail - you're too big. And you are dangerous to this Nation.
Therefore you must be.... downsized.

It's a matter of National Security.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, to be among the behemoths deemed too big to fail

By ELLEN GOODMAN
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5639798.html

IDON'T know too many economists who get confused with preachers. But there are times when they talk about virtue and temptation as if they were free-market holy rollers.

Consider the phrase that has been popping up all over the Bear Stearns debacle: "moral hazard." No, Moral Hazard is not the name of a country and western singer.

It's the phrase economists use to explain why people shouldn't be protected from the consequences of their actions. In The Wall Street Journal's definition, moral hazards are "the distortions introduced by the prospect of not having to pay for your sins."

The idea began as an argument against insurance. If you had fire insurance, you'd be careless around matches. Zap, more fires. In recent decades, it's been used as a righteous reason for shredding safety social nets and toughening laws like those against declaring bankruptcy. Such safety nets, it's argued, only encouraged more sinners, excuse me, welfare mothers and bankrupt families.

[zbdent]

1. Didn't this happen just after the Supreme Court ruled that

corporations couldn't be sued by their shareholders for being absolutely dishonest and screwing them out of their investments?

Gee, that's timing ...