What ever happened to the Anti-Trust Laws?

[numan]

'
Too Big to Jail?

We are supposed to be a country of laws. The laws should apply to Wall Street as well as everybody else. So I was stunned when our country's top law enforcement official recently suggested it might be difficult to prosecute financial institutions that commit crimes because it may destabilize the financial system of our country and the world.The attorney general's view seems to be that if you are just a regular person and you commit a crime, you go to jail. But if you are the head of a Wall Street company, your power is so great that a prosecution could have destabilizing consequences with national or even worldwide implications....

In other words, we have a situation now where Wall Street banks are not only too big to fail, they are too big to jail. That view is unacceptable.

The attorney general's troubling acknowledgement has revived interest in an idea that is drawing more and more support. It is time to break up too big to fail financial institutions.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Like so many modern problems, the end of anti-trust law started with a neologism, specifically "economies of scale" the battle cry of corporate jingos from the late 1960s until it became irrelevant (not to mention proved to have limits) around 1994 or so. Enron is the most hilarious example of the "benefits" of economies of scale as well as the "benefits" of de-regulatory nonsense leading to 'too big to fail - or jail'.

Carter's folks jump started rolling back anti-trust laws by lifting the regulatory lid on credit card rates, but ReagaNUTs took de-regulation to the hoop destroying S&Ls for the purpose of speeding up bank consolidation - and in doing that also pioneered bailouts, QE, and voodoo economics (debt-fueled canned heater grade economies).

In sum, anti-trust law was thrown under the same bus as any number of regulations trashed by FriedmaNUTs who benefited from bailouts and QE in 1987, 1988, adn throughout the Clinton presidency and after until 2008 when the deregulatory elephant in the room took a big dump.

 

[eflatminor]

It is time to break up too big to fail financial institutions.

Or simply let them fail, if that's really what would happen. Personally, I don't believe for a second that doing so would destabilize the world's economy. But if you're sure the government is full of crap for choosing not to prosecute, why would you trust them to meddle even further by breaking up certain companies? I say let the market decide which companies fail or succeed while making sure the government prosecutes anyone from any firm that has taken what didn't belong to him.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is time to break up too big to fail financial institutions.

Or simply let them fail,

lets not forget that we did let 1000's fail including WaMu, Bear Sterns, Lehman, Merril , Country wide, Indy Mac, Golden Mac. Now we have much experience, Dodd Frank, living wills, so I think were fine.

Liberals want to punish the banks because they seem vulnerable not because they should be punished. Marx taught them to hate all business, but not the government that actually caused the housing collapse and recession.

 

[edthecynic]

Banks are the loophole in the anti-trust laws, that is why Rockefeller switched from his Standard Oil holding company to banking to maintain control of his oil monopoly. Banks like "charities" are immune to all anti-trust laws. To understand this you must understand the subtle difference between ownership and control. You cannot own a monopoly, but you can control one. If you control a bank or a charity, and the Rockefeller family does both, you can distribute among them the controlling interest of all "competing" companies you wish to monopolize.

For example, lets say some pension funds are deposited in the bank, the bank then buys stock in the name of those pension funds. The bank can buy stock in "competing" companies but on paper the stock is owned by several different funds, however the bank votes the proxies for that stock and thus controls all the major competition in that field. "Charities" can do the same and the Rockefeller family has over 2,000 charities they can distribute stock among, voting the proxies while never owning a single share.

"Competition is a sin" "Own nothing. Control everything"
John D Rockefeller

 

[uscitizen]

It is time to break up too big to fail financial institutions.

Or simply let them fail,

lets not forget that we did let 1000's fail including WaMu, Bear Sterns, Lehman, Merril , Country wide, Indy Mac, Golden Mac. Now we have much experience, Dodd Frank, living wills, so I think were fine.

Liberals want to punish the banks because they seem vulnerable not because they should be punished. Marx taught them to hate all business, but not the government that actually caused the housing collapse and recession.

How many of those actually failed by ending or were just gobbled up making other corps bigger?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Or simply let them fail,

lets not forget that we did let 1000's fail including WaMu, Bear Sterns, Lehman, Merril , Country wide, Indy Mac, Golden Mac. Now we have much experience, Dodd Frank, living wills, so I think were fine.

Liberals want to punish the banks because they seem vulnerable not because they should be punished. Marx taught them to hate all business, but not the government that actually caused the housing collapse and recession.

How many of those actually failed by ending or were just gobbled up making other corps bigger?

the point is owners lost every penny and for the most part management lost their jobs so huge lessons were learned in the industry. Trying to regulate now as if libturd bureaucrats care more about failure than owners and management is silly. Bureaucrats have no skin in the game

 

[westwall]

'
Too Big to Jail?

We are supposed to be a country of laws. The laws should apply to Wall Street as well as everybody else. So I was stunned when our country's top law enforcement official recently suggested it might be difficult to prosecute financial institutions that commit crimes because it may destabilize the financial system of our country and the world.The attorney general's view seems to be that if you are just a regular person and you commit a crime, you go to jail. But if you are the head of a Wall Street company, your power is so great that a prosecution could have destabilizing consequences with national or even worldwide implications....

In other words, we have a situation now where Wall Street banks are not only too big to fail, they are too big to jail. That view is unacceptable.

The attorney general's troubling acknowledgement has revived interest in an idea that is drawing more and more support. It is time to break up too big to fail financial institutions.

The corporate elite either bought or got themselves elected to Congress and passed laws to exempt themselves from the laws they pass that affect us. Corruption my man, good old fasioned corruption.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The corporate elite either bought or got themselves elected to Congress and passed laws to exempt themselves from the laws they pass that affect us. Corruption my man, good old fasioned corruption.

and your best example is??? or must you admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to present one to support your gibberish? Sorry!

 

[westwall]

The corporate elite either bought or got themselves elected to Congress and passed laws to exempt themselves from the laws they pass that affect us. Corruption my man, good old fasioned corruption.

and your best example is??? or must you admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to present one to support your gibberish? Sorry!

Really? You're that dense?

This is ONE of many...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7ta8faNlBQ]60 Minutes Working on Pelosi Investigation - YouTube.flv - YouTube[/ame]