Fine, be too big to fail. But why do they get treated any differently than a small bank in Kansas that gets upside-down and needs the FDIC to roll in and take it over?
As far as I'm concerned, too big to fail means nationalized and broken up until they are small enough to not pose a threat to the entire economy. When nationalized because they are on the brink of failure, investors get shoved to the back of the line after all other claimants and wiped out.
I mean, this model has served capitalism well for eons. Why are the self-proclaimed captains of capitalism, Wall Street, the ones who get a free pass to stay in business?
Now I'm all angry again.
Speaking of somebody who's very much pro technology, I think technology has improved the lives of billions of people, reduced information asymmetries, reduce the cost of goods and services, and provided more democratic access to lots of things, but there are some negatives.
Fwiw, all of information technology comprises about 10% of the US economy
Or, the structure of international capitalism means firms in the core extract value from the peripheries.
The US stock market isn't “stocks of firms tied only to their operations in the US”.