News & Analysis
How US Fascism Comes Out on Top Via 'Too-Big-to-Fail'?
'Too Big to Fail' Clearinghouse Hunt .. Regulators have notified some payment and clearing firms that they face a review to determine whether their failure could pose a risk to the economy. The Financial Stability Oversight Council, comprising top financial regulators and created by the Dodd-Frank financial-overhaul law, last month sent letters to so-called financial-market utilities—the minutes didn't specify which or how many—saying they are being considered for designation as systemically important. The council disclosed it had sent the letters in minutes from its last meeting, released Wednesday. – Wall Street Journal
Dominant Social Theme: Important businesses cannot be allowed to fail. If, in fact, government must prop them up and take them over, then so be it. Look how well GM is doing!
Free-Market Analysis: Is this how fascism comes to America? It would seem a steady drip, drip, drip of frenetic government activism is concretizing the fascist state the way lime solidifies cement.
Even in the 1980s under the Reagan administration, the media mythos of the US emphasized its marketplace affiliations. The idea was that US civilization was succeeding because it was market based. But this rhetoric seems to have been abandoned in the 2000s.
The US sociopolitical stance, more and more, is one of "bigness" in which large entities are seen as successful or important no matter the reality of their evolution or current status.
It is a kind of trick, of course. Those with access to the levers of power will always be able to create large facilities. The issue is actually the competence of these facilities and whether they fulfill the purposes for which they were created.
Many modern, large-scale entities, especially those with government affiliations, are anything but competent. This is an entirely logical perspective. Large entities are usually advantaged ones. And the more artificial advantages an entity receives, the less apt it is to be exposed to market forces.
The less operative market forces are, the more inefficient and hapless the enterprise becomes – entailing yet more bailouts and special advantages. It is soon a vicious circle, a feedback loop of incompetence and even futility.
Has it been planned that way? The Anglosphere power elite that wants to run the world via global government is not apparently interested in stability or efficiency. Its handful of immensely powerful and wealthy leaders are interested mainly in DESTABILIZATION, from what we can tell. Bigness is yet another resource within their tool kit.
The more the West – and the world – is destabilized, the easier it will be, seemingly from their point of view, to impose world government. Starving, homeless, sick, war-weary populations are apt to put up less resistance to a New World Order than healthy, engaged citizens.
If one was to try to build a New World Order – global government – the logical manifestations would be hunger, misery, pestilence and violence. The causative agent would be bigness – of every kind. The bigger the better – especially if that bigness is buttressed by a bureaucracy supported by taxes and divorced from competition.
And what better way to inculcate bigness than to declare that certain hitherto private entities are "too big to fail"? It is a perfect dominant social theme. These power elite-generated fear-based promotions are intended to separate middle classes from wealth and power while reinforcing globalist agencies.
In fact, the idea that certain businesses are "too big to fail" is merely an extension of the propagandistic effort that gave us our current catastrophic central banking economy, worldwide. State-monopoly central banking is supposed to be an antidote to economic collapse. But always, the power elite will make arguments that are entirely opposed to the reality it wants to inculcate.
If the elites are arguing that government regulations and government funding will somehow make private enterprise more stable, you can be sure the reverse is true. The modern world is based on this sort of sick propaganda, which constantly informs people of solutions that generate exactly the opposite results from those that are putatively intended.
This kind of propaganda-as-program was unleashed on the West at least a hundred years ago, from what we can tell. In hindsight, it seems increasingly evident that those who campaigned for monopoly central banking (like JP Morgan himself) probably had a hand in the Panic of '07 that ultimately led to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act 1913.
Since that time, US government intrusion into all sectors of private enterprise has only grown. Various government activities are routine now that would have generated an outcry even in the 20th century a decade or two ago.
The invasive practices of "Homeland Security" are just on example. Hardly a day goes by without some new and obvious outrage: a child is tasered, an elderly woman with cancer is strip-searched at the airport, innocent people are shot when a SWAT team raids the wrong house looking for marijuana cigarettes.
But as obvious and horrid as these episodes are, the main evolution of government intrusion takes place within the context of sociopolitical policies. When bigness and its justifications are enshrined as statist polity, then fascism itself has becomes the dominant "ism."
This is what is happening now in the United States. Fascism is taking over capitalism not just within the context of a business evolution but as a matter of course. This is no accident, in our view. Its expansion has been falsely justified and then enshrined as law. Here's some more from the article:
A lot of attention has been paid to the law's provision directing regulators to give the designation to big banks and other financial firms, but it also includes a similar process for clearing and payments firms. The law automatically considers any bank with $50 billion or more in assets systemically important. Regulators haven't yet designated any other financial institutions thusly ...
The letters, sent in January, indicate regulators completed the first of a two-stage process to decide which financial-market utilities warrant tougher regulation. In the first step, regulators look at information they already have, such as an institution's exposure to counter-parties and links to other financial institutions, to determine which entities merit further scrutiny ...
Later, the council will vote on individual clearinghouses; a two-thirds majority is required to designate one as systemically important. Those that are ultimately designated so face heightened regulatory requirements and scrutiny. But they could gain new access to some of the Federal Reserve's loans, including the discount window.
It is hard even to begin to unpack the untruths in these three paragraphs. Clearinghouses are a necessary part of the financial process, but guaranteeing clearinghouses with federal money merely ensures that sooner or later there will be a cataclysmic financial disaster. (Ask any thinking person whether there is any facility in the world – government or otherwise – that can guarantee solvency and the answer should be "no.")
Now, those who have created central banks will argue that indeed government – or its agents – can ensure solvency but this is not true. A central bank can inflate away catastrophe via money printing but at some point that same money printing passes the costs of catastrophe onto hapless citizens who are burdened with higher prices and higher taxes as a result.
One trades financial instability for social instability. That's what is happening now, in fact. Extend the trend logically and one begins to perceive that while the financial system has been "stabilized" the social system has been DE-stabilized.
From the point of view of the power elite, social instability is perhaps preferable to financial instability. We reply: Be careful what you wish for.
Then there is the issue of regulation. Every regulation is a price fix, transferring wealth from those who have created it to those who have not and are unable to utilize it as efficiently. Regulations DISTORT economic activity and usually have results that are the opposite of what is intended.
Too-big-to-fail legislation is toxic on every level. It marries government to private industry, drains competition from the marketplace and ensures that the most important elements of the modern financial system are further constrained by regulatory fiat.
Of course, one could argue that the modern system – one that has been built on the monetary fraud of central banking – is not worth saving anyway. We would agree with that, in fact. The current financial system not only deserves to collapse, it DID collapse three years ago.
The dollar reserve system, from our point of view, is already dead. From what we can tell, central banks – at the behest of their controlling power elite – have injected some US$50 TRILLION into the system worldwide.
These horrible numbers are actually incomprehensible. The larger financial system is effectively frozen. It has not been allowed to shed its failing elements, and one could argue, in fact, that these failing facilities have been enshrined at the heart of the system's decisive economic dysfunction.
In other words, the very entities that are the most important to the system's current operation are the ones that should be allowed to fail. They exist only because the system – worldwide – is a kind of elite command-and-control operation that has little or nothing to do with free markets.
But as the current central banking system becomes more and more dysfunctional, the costs of keeping it going are rising exponentially. As we have pointed out, the current environment has a manifest logic, and it's not a pleasant one.
There is no economic justification for "too-big-to-fail" except the brutal logic that government funds must compensate for private failures. This will work for a while, but not forever. Eventually, the dysfunction will be too big even for governments' large pockets. In the meantime, we will have "isms" – specifically, growing fascism in the US. Europe, we would argue, is headed in the same direction.
Remove competition from the marketplace and you end up with a collection of enterprises that perform inconsequential functions incompetently. More importantly, you end up with a federalized private sector and a series of disastrous "public-private" partnerships.
The result is ruin – ruin of every kind. Militarism thrives in a fascist environment. So does a certain kind of ignorance, civic dysfunction and increasingly poverty and civil violence. Chaos looms. Of course, out of chaos ... order. A New World Order. That's obviously the plan.
But as we often point out, we would tend to believe that what we call the Internet Reformation will make the elite's main dream rather hard to achieve. The more that the powers-that-be plot to increase the dysfunction of the Western world and especially America, the more push back is generated, in our view. It may turn out that ordinary people in the Internet era are far more resistant to fascism – statism – than elites currently believe.
Conclusion: Will the world-spanning plans of the Anglosphere be realized? Just as too-big-too-fail is ultimately an insupportable concept, so is the idea of world government. They are both based on enormous economic fallacies and carry within their implementation the seeds of their own destruction.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 02/02/12 12:58 PM
DB: "A central bank can inflate away catastrophe via money printing but at some point that same money printing passes the costs of catastrophe onto hapless citizens who are burdened with higher prices and higher taxes as a result."
------------
The Krugman: "why is the inflation target only 2 percent? Actually, I understand why; the inflation hawks are still a powerful force that must be appeased. But the truth is that recent experience has made an overwhelming case for the proposition that the 2 percent or so implicit target prior to the Great Recession was too low, that 4 or 5 percent would be much better."
Click to view link
I have no words ...
 |
Posted by rossbcan on 02/02/12 01:22 PM
"becomes more and more dysfunctional, the costs of keeping it going are rising exponentially."
The "system" is a Rube Goldberg contraption, a faux perpetual motion (something from nothing) construct of "rule of man" decrees, imposed / maintained by force, to the SOLE benefit of the predators who infest it and imposed it on us, incrementally, one faux "neccessity" at a time.
"Important businesses cannot be allowed to fail."
"We, the people" (unseen hand) WILL decide what is important and what is not, by the CHOICES we do or do not make:
Click to view link
Luckily, we don't have to beat them and, joining them is the sheer folly of joining an addict on the final downward spiral of death, or, an epiphany, unlikey for those who have forsaken reason. We just have to use our inherent freedom to "not associate" or, if caught in their web of servitude, make the costs of enslaving us far less than the profits. Then, the grim reaper of "Mathematics of Rule" (reality) will continue to do the heavy lifting:
Click to view link
"The bigger they are, the harder they fall" is not a quaint truism from our far more worldly ancestors. It is a FACT.
Ditto for the minority who misrepresent (misinterpret with their ponderous self-proclaimed intellects and faux moral authority) the "rule of law" to mean "rule of THEM", resulting, yet again in "rule of corrupt man", collapsing civilization:
Click to view link
|
Posted by rossbcan on 02/02/12 01:25 PM
Inflation is the rate at which THEY steal stored wealth. THEY have moved on from "stealing is WRONG" to faux debates (two wolves debating with a sheep regarding what's for lunch) regarding how much stealing is OK.
Seems to me, that is the business of the victims, regarding how much they will "tolerate" criminals to steal.
|
Posted by rossbcan on 02/02/12 02:13 PM
"make the costs of enslaving us far less than the profits."
typo:
"make the costs of enslaving us far more than the profits."
... but, I am sure my meaning was clear.
 |
Posted by NAPpy on 02/02/12 03:27 PM
What's really ironic is that the inflation numbers themselves are lies. If you just ignore the fact that you can't aggregate a web of constantly changing buyer-seller bids, shandowstats shows that the current inflation rate is more like 10%.
|
Posted by memehunter on 02/02/12 03:44 PM
Inflation is an unavoidable consequence of a fiat currency based on compound interest. Exponentially increasing quantities of currency must be "created" (borrowed, in fact) so that its users may be able to pay some of the interest burden. Indeed, in the absence of printing, not only the debt burden would eventually become unbearable, but the system would collapse on itself as there would not be enough currency in circulation to service the interest charges (technically, inflation may be "avoided" but as it is a lesser evil when compared to a systemic collapse, inflation will almost always happen under these circumstances).
As I wrote a few weeks ago on the DB, the repeated episodes of "quantitative easing" that we are witnessing are probably a sign that we are entering the terminal stage of the current system.
Mike Montagne (author of the "Mathematically Perfected Economy") has explained clearly, using mathematical models, how hyperinflation and "exponential expansion" is the end-stage of debt-based currencies using compound interest.
|
Posted by nithsdale on 02/02/12 04:41 PM
In my hayday, the intelligentsia decried "Cartels in Action" and it lasted into the 1950's, when it disappeared as the GI bill of Rights flooded the colleges and universities with WWII vets seeking a way to a better life.
Those Baby Makers fueled a whole new approach to the market. Almost from its beginning, this new generation bought into large scale plans for the general populace. Houses were built exactly alike for hundreds of thousands of new home seekers. Levitt-towns were built all over New York, Hovnanians in New Jersey and Florida and the race was on for new towns, new schools, bigger "developments! Supermarkets flooded the outskirts of towns while Main Street went bust, then the malls came and then international items appeared all over and people discussed fashion and fads from England as well as France, Italy, Germany et al!
The GIs not only supported a new life style but new concepts. They had been all over the world and knew it first hand and desired to keep in touch with what they had sampled and many wanted to go back with family to show what they had been part of while serving the USA!
Travel became commonplace... all over the world! Young entreprenuers saw products in strange out of the way places and made a market for them here in the USA! That meant new clearing houses had to be formed to change currencies and new banking had to be invented to accomodate trade and growing exchange worldwide for all thse new entrepreneurs!
American Express was the first to facilitate this worldwide exchange in currencies and information, even postal access. The GI's took to it and were happy to have AE credentials... .they were as good as their GI tags had been in the war. That success led to the formation of other credit devices, all begun by rugged individual business people and then adopted as they proved their success... .Diners Club, Mastercard, Visa et al, all tailored for distribution via small business orgs!
The Credit card made cash obsolete. It was not the creature of the Federal Reserve... in fact the Fed could not understand it for a decade while the cards flooded the world with dollars, not actual, but credits!
This is what made the dollar the international currency. The Fed just sat back in wonderment while millions of Americans took their credit cards, sparked the international market in everything and no one knew how much "money" was in circulation in the USA, let alone the rest of the world!
They still do not know!
I don't know where you people get your ideas from but it certainly is not from the real world! Banks and banksters, anglospheres do not make money valuable in commerce... the people who use it do that job. The free market is in play with everyone of these instruments as they appear. Government and banks merely register the activity after it has been done!
The only time your thesis holds water is when governments and banks begin to use their own formulated credit instruments to counter the strength and power of the markets... .like with International Funds, usually begun for "charity" (The Red Cross, Boy Scouts, Bible Society, Gideon, all church charities and Orders) but acually to mask governments and banks moving money from one country to another. This is followed by a series of international conclaves, building on the success of those compassionate exchanges, and then morphing into "copies" of commercial banks et al worldwide. These activities may be laid at the feet of the anglos since English has the most presses worldwide to push a fashion, mode, fad or agenda but given the emergence of the "sephardim" in these international conventions, one can hardly call them anglos! Like August Belmont or George Soros and their unique accents! In my day, we had the Krupps, Olivettis, George Elias and Victor Sassoon, Lehman, De Beers, Stern types, as well as all those South American platinum playboys, and Onassis,the Aga Khan, the Perons et al sitting astride the international financial scenes. This while Britain, even the US were second best in those circles!
A good reading of newspapers from the immediate post war era is in order for you anarcho-ecos. Just because the world press uses english in the main, does not prove your thesis. Your take on the Rothschids is almost ludicrous, given where their banking is the most advantageous! It is not the City of London and certainly not New York!
Reply from The Daily Bell
Nithsdale, you really believe the credit card industry (with its single, government consolidated clearinghouse) is a diamond on the lapel of the free market, well ... good luck to you! You are far more imaginative and daring than we are.
|
Posted by dimitri on 02/02/12 05:50 PM
The elitist media darling Christiane Amanpour has a made for MSM report today asserting with her guest (a researcher on the subject) that roughly 50% of the global economy is black market. Black market in this case is defined as a transaction occurring without any taxing entity's interference. My take: this branch of the economy should therefore also be too big to fail - sort of like the international drug trade.
Something about this report seems to have a newly flavored meme in the making. Possibilities: 1) you need global
government to monitor any and all commercial transactions, otherwise it's chaos and anarchy, 2) we're doing our best, but criminals are still winning the day; we need more and stronger enforcement, 3) your tax dollars are being "stolen" by unscrupulous small businessmen, 4) underground economies destroy the "free market", etc. Pick your lie du jour.
|
Posted by seer on 02/02/12 05:55 PM
Prior to WWII the USA had some of the highest tariffs in the world. Fascism began in WWI and has continued via the military-industrial complex. Reality is not the black and white picture presented by the DB. In 1841 German economist List blasted England for preaching free trade for other countries while having achieved its economic status through high tariffs and extensive subsidies. In 1939 Japan kicked GM and Ford out of the country and Bailed out Toyota in 1949. Right up to the 1990s China's average tariff was over 30%. Even after the early 1990's India's average manufacturing tariffs were above 30%. Chile which is hailed as a free trade example suffered a terrible financial crash in 1982 and the whole economic sector was Nationalized. In 1820 Britain average tariff rate on manufacturing imports was 45-55%. Free trade is not working for developing countries which were growing 2x as fast when they exercised protective tariffs. History is on the side of the regulators in that most of today's rich countries regulated foreign investment when they were on the receiving end-China being this day's poster child. It took Nokia 17 years to earn any profits in its electronics division. If Nokia had not been protected it would most likely have been taken over or investors would have demanded it shut down its losing electronics division. In the early 1980's the USA rescued Chrysler Corporation. Britain nationalized Rolls Royce in 1971, British steel in 1967, British Aeospace and British Leyland in 1977 (all to save these industries). Singapore Airlines is a state owned enterprise. So this statement is simply NOT True in all cases: "Remove competition from the marketplace and you end up with a collection of enterprises that perform inconsequential functions incompetently. More importantly, you end up with a federalized private sector and a series of disastrous "public-private" partnerships."
To believe the elites will allow the Game to be revamped is fairy tale thinking. I agree with Simon Johnson (MIT) that these behemoth Banks need to be split into smaller firms which are NOT to big to fail.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Fascism in the United States likely began shortly after the Revolutionary War, was perfected after the Civil War and has expanded ever since.
|
Posted by josejoe on 02/02/12 06:28 PM
i hope you can all get a copy of richard maybury's latest EWR. it is right on-as usual! feb-2012
|
Posted by alexsemen on 02/02/12 07:33 PM
DB : This music I realy like it !!
To Big to fall is Angela Merkel's fascist corporation Germany , lead by the Deutsche Bank ( you know who they are) , with the German tribe at any moment in the history: 'born to be killers" and the perpetrators of the Machine as God and niew religion of metalman !
|
Posted by W.Palmer on 02/02/12 07:35 PM
"The Financial Stability Oversight Council... ... " That sounds very grand.
I wonder where the address of that might be, or do they share an office somewhere... .
They can't squeeze anymore council's, boards, committees, in government can they? ... surely not. No they wouldn't.. there's an austerity program on now.. Yes?
|
Posted by alexsemen on 02/02/12 07:48 PM
I have a very strong remedy for your misery.
If you like to know please contact me when you are not hallucinatory !!
I would like to say to you that you are "ludicrous" but I'm afraid that one of your two neurons left is already damaged !
 |
Posted by Don from the Republic of Lakotah on 02/02/12 08:26 PM
Offtopic break: find the meme.
U.S. Treasury, Labor Departments Act to Enhance Retirement Security for an America Built to Last
Executive Actions Broaden Options, Increase Transparency for 401(k) Savers
Click to view link
Top 1% of Mobile Users Consume Half of World's Bandwidth, and Gap Is Growing
Click to view link
|
Posted by planet on 02/02/12 08:42 PM
Too big to fail is an excuse to pour money into the companies controlled by those who are buying up company after company . And does the public care? No. What do we have to say about it. The Federal Reserve controls our economy and money system and they will do whatever it takes as far as they are concerned to keep it in operation and not lose control of it. Once they lose control of it, and a man like Ron Paul comes along who wants to do away with the Federal Reserve, they may lose their centuries of work to control the world through financiaal control.
 |
Posted by Panchito42 on 02/02/12 10:38 PM
To help put this article ()in perspective, here are some very pertinent thoughts:
Whereas in socialism, as minutely and accurately put by Clodomyro Almeyda --the Foreign Relations Bolshevik minister in the cabinet of the equally Bolshevik Salvador Allende, president of Chile in the early 1970s-- in full-fledged socialism "... the government must own all the ways and all the means of all the production and all the distribution of all goods and all services in society, so that the government rightly becomes the only proprietor and only employer.
Fascism, being nothing else than, and just a step away from, half-baked socialism, has some variants: in fascism the government must co-own --or at least control tightly to either boost or bust-- select ways and select means of select production and select distribution or select goods and select services in society, so that the government becomes the most significant proprietor and employer, as well as the kingmaker and Grim-Reaper of enterprises in society. There are, of course, other characteristics that differentiate the two, but not pertinent here.
Obama belongs in one of the main strains of Marxism-Leninism, namely, Western-Marxism, one of whose traits is "pragmatism" in whose name Western-Marxists resort to using fascism as a convenient steppingstone toward full-fledged socialism, which, in turn, they deem --as absolutely every single Marxist on the planet does-- as only a convenient steppingstone toward communism.
Thus, don't be confused when Obama resorts to fascist measures, such as, for example, making the government co-own General Motors and Chrysler.
Not to leave them off the hook, also some on the side of free-entrepreneurism resort to fascism, e.g., GW Bush with his TARP.
|
Posted by Danny B on 02/02/12 11:56 PM
Here's an interesting article.
Click to view link
As far as too-big-to-fail, the jury is still out. Jim Sinclair says that the 5 biggest U.S. banks will fail very soon.
Click to view link
Obviously, it's a possibility. But, everyone figures that there will always be a "save" from somewhere on high. Maybe not?? GOV is pretty limited in it's actions.
One month before Lehman Bros collapsed "out of the blue", no other bank would accept their collateral. The bankers all drink together and they have a general knowledge of the condition of their competitors.
Here's a few quotes from the Daily Reckoning;
"Last week, nine Goldman insiders scurried away from their stock as fast as the law would let them.
They cashed out $20 million worth of stock at an average price of $107.44. This is the very same stock (NYSE:GS) that Goldman - on behalf of its shareholders - spent $21 billion buying over the last five years. The average price of those purchases was about $171 per share.
Here's our question: Why is Goldman's stock a 'Buy' for shareholders at $171 a share, but a 'Sell' for insiders at $107 per share?
Something's wrong with this picture. Or, to change metaphors, something's rotten with this onion. Let's peel it back until we find the source of the stench.
First data point: Goldman's revenues and earnings are falling even faster than its reputation. Two weeks ago, the company reported a whopping 58% drop in fourth quarter earnings, compared to 2010."
"This latest quarterly report punctuates a troubling three-year trend. Goldman's full-year net income hit a record $13.4 billion in 2009, then slipped to $8.4 billion in 2010 before tumbling to $4.4 billion last year."
"As noted above, Goldman's management spent $21 billion of the shareholders' capital buying GS stock in the open market at an average price of $171 a share. Today, the stock sells for $111. On a mark-to-market basis, therefore, Goldman's stock buy-back 'investment' has produced a loss of about $7.3 billion for shareholders - or more than the company's total net income during the last five quarters! That's the bad news. The good news is that these share purchases helped support the share price so that the top nine guys at Goldman could sell their stock for $20 million."
If GS insiders don't want to hold GS stock, what do they know that GS stockholders don't know? If GS insiders would trash GS earnings just to get a "few" more bucks for their personal stock holdings, that doesn't imply much confidence in the future of GS.
The Greek tragedy will definitely have repercussions here. Big, bad, bald, Ben Bernanke says that he will continue ZIRP to protect America from any European fallout.
Click to view link
So, when the Greek default takes out the French banks who have been in terrible shape anyway, the collapse of French banks will take out New York banks.
BBBB Bernanke can't possibly cover a $ hundred trillion,, or so of CDS on failed European debt with just ZIRP.
Portugal has gone past % 7. They will melt down a lot faster than Greece did because everybody has already read the script. Italy is standing on-deck for their turn.
GS may have decided to take what money they can get and BAIL .
|
Posted by josejoe on 02/03/12 09:24 AM
dannyB-i was talking about the emptiness of goldman sachs 5 yrs ago. this politically propped up cancer started this whole mess.
 |
Posted by dave jr on 02/03/12 09:37 AM
Too big to fail? Too fat to diet? Is too small to succeed also true?
This is another typical example of doublespeak where cause and effect is reversed. Bigness is made possible by not failing. Bigness is the desire, so failure has to be covered up.
Those who speak this way are hiding the truth about their agenda, because if known, it would be viewed as vile and repugnant.
|
Posted by rossbcan on 02/03/12 09:47 AM
'Too-Big-to-Fail'?
Bear in mind that, in our action precedes consequence reality that "failure" is a consequence of the actions (choices) leading to it. Thus, the statement "too big to fail" translates, in "realspeak" to: unaccountable, irresponsible for OWN actions.
This is the same old algorithm of servitude of our slavers (private gain, public loss) based upon decreeing the ownership of who profits by actions and, who loses by facing the consequences of actions over which they had no part, nor control. In other words, institutionalized injustice:
Justice Defined: We are all free to profit or suffer and learn (adapt to excellence) by facing the consequences of our OWN choices. Injustice is to be forced to suffer the consequences of choices of unaccountable (irresponsible) others..
"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern. The law of liberty tends to abolish the reign of race over race, of faith over faith, of class over class." ~ Lord Acton
|
|
