| ▲ | lazide 3 days ago |
| It’s the definition of ‘too big to fail’, and it’s been a viable and effective strategy… for ever? Near as I can tell. He’ll, the Fed even got created because of the time the whole US economy cratered in the early 20th century and one man was the one whole bailed out the whole country. |
|
| ▲ | rickdeckard 3 days ago | parent [-] |
| 'Too big to fail' is only said about companies that didn't collapse yet though. But such companies also failed already. Enron, Arthur Andersen, WorldCom comes to mind. Even Blockbuster could be on that list... |
| |
| ▲ | lazide 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The take away is they weren’t big enough to have enough leverage eh? | | |
| ▲ | rickdeckard 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > The take away is they weren’t big enough to have enough leverage eh? This reasoning has some parallels to "everything that can't be explained by science must be god".
It stays valid even when proven wrong... | | |
| ▲ | lazide 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Eh, if they died and everything didn’t actually break in a terrible unsolvable way, then…. It’s essentially a form of market extortion though, so perception of ‘survivable’ matters as much as actually survivable eh? |
|
|
|
