A really cool link to get you to think

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 6:50 am

I tripped across this site while reading the news. It debates the latest issues. Really good articles. Check it out.

Debate Club - Opinions and Debate on the Topics of the Day | US News

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:58 am

Interesting. Thanks

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:46 pm

Interesting link. Looking at some of the comments it's clear the biggest threat to your freedom comes from your own politicians not from outside. The notion that just because they are not american means they don't deserve due process is bad enough but I gather they have now extended it to Americans as well.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:51 pm

Worth looking at.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:13 pm

I can't tell how often they present a new topic. Weekly is my guess. The one that drew my interest was this one:

Are Banks Becoming Too Big to Jail? | Debate Club | US News Opinion

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:53 pm

Accountable;1422578 wrote: I can't tell how often they present a new topic. Weekly is my guess. The one that drew my interest was this one:

Are Banks Becoming Too Big to Jail? | Debate Club | US News Opinion

I understand to big to fail, but to big to jail?

Some banks are just to big, break them up. But who or what do we jail?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 6:16 pm

tude dog;1422581 wrote: I understand to big to fail, but to big to jail?

Some banks are just to big, break them up. But who or what do we jail?

From the link:speaking in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder explained:

"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy, and I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large."

I think it incredible that Washington seriously thinks that the rule of law should take a back seat to the economy.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:09 am

Accountable;1422583 wrote: From the link:

I think it incredible that Washington seriously thinks that the rule of law should take a back seat to the economy.

As some political fold may say, "I misspoke."

Some banks are just to big, break them up. But who or what do we jail?

I am a big fan of George F. Will and agree with his commentary

Time to break up the big banks

I don't find it incredible that some think rule of law should take a back seat to the economy.

Of course that attitude is foolish, at least on the long run. Rule of law is the solid ground we build everything else.

The question, who goes to jail.

Way things seem to work now, the laws are really impotent.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:44 am

tude dog;1422581 wrote: I understand to big to fail, but to big to jail?

Some banks are just to big, break them up. But who or what do we jail?

That's already been defined for the crime of corporate manslaughter and I see no reason why it should be different for any other corporate crime.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:36 pm

Bryn Mawr;1422611 wrote: That's already been defined for the crime of corporate manslaughter and I see no reason why it should be different for any other corporate crime.

Had to Google that as it new to me.

Without knowing the details, sounds something that could work here.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:49 pm

Accountable;1422583 wrote:

I think it incredible that Washington seriously thinks that the rule of law should take a back seat to the economy.

Isn't this part of the civilisation versus liberty discussion ?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:59 am

tude dog;1422607 wrote: As some political fold may say, "I misspoke."

I am a big fan of George F. Will and agree with his commentary

Time to break up the big banks

I don't find it incredible that some think rule of law should take a back seat to the economy.

Of course that attitude is foolish, at least on the long run. Rule of law is the solid ground we build everything else.

The question, who goes to jail.

Way things seem to work now, the laws are really impotent.
I Like George Will, too.

I thought I'd posted here, but it must've been in another forum. I think we ought to amend the laws on monopolies to apply to any company that becomes "too big to fail". We should establish an objective calculation to define when a company becomes too big - meaning that its collapse would hurt the national economy (and national security by extension). It would have to be something like a percentage of GDP, rather than a hard number, so that it would stay valid over time. Once a company crosses that line, it gets divided up into 3 or 4 companies.

It would not unfairly violate property rights, since no property would actually change hands. But it would increase competition within that business sector, increase employment (each new company would need its own management and executive teams), and increase innovation since corporations naturally try to find creative ways to skirt the law.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:59 am

Bruv;1422619 wrote: Isn't this part of the civilisation versus liberty discussion ?

:yh_think :yh_think :yh_think :yh_think

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:58 pm

Accountable;1422637 wrote: I Like George Will, too.

I thought I'd posted here, but it must've been in another forum. I think we ought to amend the laws on monopolies to apply to any company that becomes "too big to fail". We should establish an objective calculation to define when a company becomes too big - meaning that its collapse would hurt the national economy (and national security by extension). It would have to be something like a percentage of GDP, rather than a hard number, so that it would stay valid over time. Once a company crosses that line, it gets divided up into 3 or 4 companies.

It would not unfairly violate property rights, since no property would actually change hands. But it would increase competition within that business sector, increase employment (each new company would need its own management and executive teams), and increase innovation since corporations naturally try to find creative ways to skirt the law.

Would that have any effect?

You can quite easily divide a company up into many small companies but if they are owned and run by the same people (no property has changed hands) then what effect does it have on the way the whole is run or the risk of it failing?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:35 pm

Bryn Mawr;1422722 wrote: Would that have any effect?

You can quite easily divide a company up into many small companies but if they are owned and run by the same people (no property has changed hands) then what effect does it have on the way the whole is run or the risk of it failing?
The owners could shunt whatever is hurting the company (now companies) to one of the new companies and allow it to fail while the others survive, would be my guess. The point is that the CEO's would know that a gov't bailout would no longer be an option, and so they would likely be a bit more prudent with their business decisions.

The property hasn't changed hands, but the management teams would be different, at least in all but one of the new companies.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:03 pm

Accountable;1422736 wrote: The owners could shunt whatever is hurting the company (now companies) to one of the new companies and allow it to fail while the others survive, would be my guess. The point is that the CEO's would know that a gov't bailout would no longer be an option, and so they would likely be a bit more prudent with their business decisions.

The property hasn't changed hands, but the management teams would be different, at least in all but one of the new companies.

What would happen if an outside agency like the government forced a company to restructure in such a way is that they'd run it as separate legal entities but with the same executive. It would make no practical difference to the running or the liabilities of the group.

As an example, RBS at the time of failure consisted of dozens of separate legal entities (I think it was over a hundred but I could list a couple of dozen). That neither stopped them from foundering nor allowed them to isolate the point of failure to protect themselves.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:18 pm

I don't have all the answers, I just know that if too big to fail is harmful then the logical thing is to make it not so big anymore.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:42 pm

Just had a thought (head still hurts.):(

Wasn't all that long ago, hmm, a century or so, where some business's were just plain to big. Or so that was the perception of some. They weren't failing, but were powerful engines of prosperity.

Robber Barons, or Captains of Industry?

Monopolies was the issue and progressives at the time would have none of that.

I suppose it's been all a trade off since then, not to mention the lack of securities control which lead not only to the 1928 stock market crash, but the recession we've experienced since 2007.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:20 pm

You're right. Blaming monopolies is taking the easy way out, like blaming guns. The only monopolies that were financially successful were government-run or government-subsidized, so monopolies in and of themselves are neither good nor bad. Corporations that get so big that their failure threaten the entire national economy (and thus national security) are undeniably and categorically bad, regardless if they are monopolies or not.