Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Flemlord | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Flemlord

Agreed. If it's too big to fail, it's to big to exist.

View on HN

And the truth of that statement is not bank-specific.

For example, it applies to financial regulators and even govts....

You really want governments to start failing?

I mean California is getting close, but that's mostly because it hamstrung itself early on by allowing citizens to promote legislation.

While there are a few governments that I would like to be changed (Chinese Democracy anyone), the general trend towards democracy and liberty has been a good thing.

If saw a govt does get too big to fail, having it fail could well lead to chaos or a dictatorship.

I know there is a lot of whinging by Republicans in the US about 'small' government, but really you're not going to get decent change in your country overall unless the federal government acts as the states aren't up to it (seatbelt laws anyone?)

really you're not going to get decent change in your country overall unless the federal government acts as the states aren't up to it (seatbelt laws anyone?)

The point is that in the U.S. the Federal Government was, by design, to be limited in the powers it could exert over the states and citizens.

I think the argument from those who are for "small government" is not that change such as seatbelt laws are bad or unwanted, but that the cost of and danger in relinquishing to the Federal Government the power to make those decisions is far, far greater.

I don't think Anamax is saying that he wants appropriate governments to fail, but rather that ginormous governments should be split as well. If a country's failure leads to chaos, perhaps the size of that government should be rethought.

We should step back and realize that a government isn't some sacred perpetual institution but rather a means to represent people. If a government fails to represent it's people, it must be changed.

I thought that that's what I wrote. Thanks.

I think in the case of governments it's not that they can be too big to fail, it's that if they get too big, they do fail. Though maybe that's the general case, now that I think about it.

edit s/its/it\'s/g

At the same time the bigger the government the less change the country will have since most of the resources will be used by people in government to maintain the status quo.

There is no too big to fail, that is just a ploy to convince you to not be angry at your money being given to them. Sure if they failed it would be bad, but it's going to be bad anyway. All we are doing is prolonging and exacerbating the pain.

Splitting up the banks won't eliminate the "too big to fail" problem. If a systemic crash (like the one last year) causes hundreds of smaller banks to fail, there will be just as much pressure to bail them out as if one giant bank fails.

99 have already failed this year, and probably 2 or 3 hundred more will fail before this crisis is over, and their depositors have been bailed out - their stockholders and management haven't, unlike the big guys.

2nd that

Reply on news.ycombinator.com