Articles Comments

Debt Relief – Insolvency – Bankruptcy Information » Insolvency » Rep. Grayson and Economists: How Do You Know When It’s Too Big to Fail?

Rep. Grayson and Economists: How Do You Know When It’s Too Big to Fail?


Economist Dean Baker, former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson, economist Jeff Sachs, and Heritage Foundation scholar David John discuss the Science of Insolvency in the Science and Technology Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on Tuesday, May 19, 2009. The hearing notice and witness statements are located here: science.house.gov

RELATED POSTS:

  1. Most economists believe that the better fiat money serves as a store of value, the more acceptable it is….? Most economists believe that the better fiat money serves as a store of value, the more acceptable it is. What...

  2. Grayson Press Conference – Jacobini Foreclosure Grayson Press Conference In Orlando Nancy Jacobini Foreclosure ...

  3. CIT Bankruptcy; 9 More Banks fail; Personal Update 9 banks fail in 1 day; $2.5 billion hit to FDIC insurance fund www.marketwatch.com CIT Files Bankruptcy www.washingtonpost.com Please...

  4. From Here to Insolvency: Can the American Dream Survive Crushing Debt? Alison Fraser of the Heritage Foundation explains how Democrat detractor’s of Paul Ryan’s plan (and Newt Gingrich) are unfair...

  5. Lawline TV: “Economic Flux & the Tipping of the West” Host: David Schnurman, Lawline.com Guest: Roger Arnold, ALM Advisors DESCRIPTION: The economic outlook for the United States, and the...

Written by

Filed under: Insolvency · Tags: , , , , ,

25 Responses to "Rep. Grayson and Economists: How Do You Know When It’s Too Big to Fail?"

  1. intermitrj says:
    Free energy technology exists!But the powerfull Oil business won’t alow common ppl to know this,Get the blueprints for a real Magnet motor free enegy machine at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Start the energy revolution!
  2. MrSalamander7 says:
    *Duh Duh Dum Chsh*
  3. savemyplaylist says:
    @MrSalamander7

    they already are…

  4. MrSalamander7 says:
    Nationalize the banks.
  5. monkeyman1140 says:
    Another name for a regulation is a LAW. The banks want a lawless environment where everything is legal, thus they can never get in trouble for what they do.
  6. kmhutter says:
    I like Mr. Grayson’s idea of rewarding the smaller, responsible banks, and allowing the irrepsonsible banks TO be split up sold at fari market value on the open markets. The idea of rewarding predatory lending, mismanagement and downright irresponsiblity is completely corrupt. This was stated in a different video, not this one. The bailout fundamentally rewarded failure and cost all of us dearly.
  7. shortist2003 says:
    Dean Baker is definitely a guy we want involved in discoveries or hearings such as this. He has been right on top of fall the financial and budget shenanigans and their probable and eventual effects for many years.
  8. samlaunch says:
    Too Big To Fail should be changed to: Too Stupid to Operate. Here is a list of stupid idiots:

    1. Goldman Sachs
    2. JP Morgan
    3. Citigroup
    4. Bank of America
    5. AIG
    6. Wells Fargo
    7. American Express

    They’re so stupid that it will cost taxpayers $23.7 Trillion to fix their $1.4 Quadrillion Derivative mess. Congress gave Goldman Sachs TARP funds of $10 Billion. Although, they paid the TARP back, they still got $12.8 Billion via the AIG bailout. Congress gave AIG the money, AIG paid out.

  9. wellingtonian says:
    Keyseyian liars.
  10. Danster82 says:
    Yeah definitely.

    In the end there is no perfect system but then anything will do over this system which couldn’t be further from perfect if it tried.

  11. abram730 says:
    Good one Danster.

    How about services lost when business fail? the gap between services lost and money?

    perhaps a reservoir of commodities that are traded for the extra money?

    people that lost their jobs will need income.. There’s direct welfare/unemployment(not a fill) or investments like education and research as better alts. as they magnify inputs; smarter then handouts.. they could be a fill counted as services seamlessly absorbing personnel till there’s room in the market.

  12. abram730 says:
    As I understand it regulated banks can only leverage to 9:1

    city group was at something like 39:1..

    Central banks in 3rd world countries have collapsed entire countries doing things like that…

    Regulation is a must but what kind?

    The quick way is to slap regular banking reg on them and pop them into the FED.. It’s that happening?

  13. abram730 says:
    bust them into smaller corps or you turn them into a monopoly like a utility.

    You do want regulation but smart regulation… smart and government in the same sentence is an oxymoron..

    any ideas?
    If your idea is market forces be sure the incentive go the right way.. an assumption of long term interests was incorrect.. shorter term interests emerged.

    reality starts as idea as we don’t create what we can’t imagine.

    without fresh ideas the most plausible emergence is a stiff monopoly.

  14. bweazel says:
    Or one in the making assisted by the Federal Reserve.
  15. mongobobo says:
    If congress makes legislation making arson legal, you can’t arrest people for burning down buildings.
  16. SugarMonkey528 says:
    You’re right. We need to get government out of the business of social and economic planning. Central Planning has proven to be a flawed system, yet that’s the exact “cure” they are proposing.

    Central Planning and government intervention in the free market is what causes these artificial booms and busts. We need to stop this crazy cycle.

  17. fatmoleman says:
    Too big to fail? Sounds like a monopoly.
  18. monetarydemise says:
    If there is no breakthrough innovative era, then our country will be in hard economic times. It is an endless cycle. Once we get out of this economic recession there will be another one waiting for us 5 years down the road. Our whole economic system is flawed and we need a new one.
  19. BrainDeadRepublican says:
    Stop congress from making laws that intervene with how business make business decision. This is the result of the CRA of 1995 forcing banks to make bad loans for political reasons
    Labour Charter 1927, Grand Council of Fascism, article 9: State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management.
  20. liuv83 says:
    Here’s a rule, how about focusing on people and the environment.
  21. Danster82 says:
    Heres a rule for you to prevent any institution posing the risk of systemic collapse.

    Remove the debt based fiat money system, money can only be backed by the total goods and services within the economy so it function is for the exchange of those goods and services.

    Now any institution can become as big as it likes and will only effect itself when it collapses because their collapse will not effect money and thus no systematic damage.

    Why are these people still beating about the bush..?

  22. mediumdz says:
    Practically every “too big to fail” U.S. bank would have failed recently had the Federal Reserve not been able to steal $hundreds of billions$ from our U.S. Treasury to give to those banks and its 12 member private banks.
    National debt (public debt) is now $11.3 trillion.
  23. bigmick142 says:
    Rep. Grayson seems very keen on the idea that there should or could be some strict set of rules about something very complex like deciding if an organization is too big to fail. But the history of artificial intelligence teaches us that making sets of rules to determine complex things is much harder than we thought. Where are the home-help robots we were so confidently promised in the 60′s? Sets of rules should only be used as guidance in complex issues.

    mickanomics-blogspot-com

  24. CBHobart says:
    ‘Too big to fail’ = too big to exist. Thank you, Mr. Grayson, for trying to start that conversation.
  25. MooseOfReason says:
    Is Sachs serious?

    An FDIC for Wall Street?

    Yeah, like we want the government insuring every move they make. That won’t make Wall Street risky at all!

Leave a Reply

Connect with Facebook

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Not finding what you're looking for?
Do a custom search of our entire site:

Get Adobe Flash player