Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Jul 2011 21:38 UTC
Google So, Google has come under scrutiny by the US Federal Trade Commission for possible anti-competitive practices. While I would say the FTC has far larger threats to competition to worry about (the inevitable p-word), it would appear there's sufficient suspicion to take a gander at Google's business practices.
Thread beginning with comment 481537
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: The right track
by rbenchley on Tue 19th Jul 2011 14:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The right track"
rbenchley
Member since:
2005-11-03

Well if you're suggesting "let the market decide", we let Wall Street do that, they sank our whole economy and needed to be bailed out by the taxpayer. And these people are supposed to be financial geniuses.

We didn't let the market decide. The financial firms got themselves in hot water and they were bailed out with TARP. If we had truly let the market decide, we would have let more of those companies die because they overextended themselves and couldn't afford to pay for their foolishness and greed. It might have been more unpleasant in the short term, but it probably would have encouraged the financial sector to be more prudent in the long term. As vile as a lot of these companies are, to a certain extent I don't blame them. They took outrageous chances because there were minimal consequences if they bet wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: The right track
by vitae on Tue 19th Jul 2011 17:20 in reply to "RE[4]: The right track"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

True enough. But could we not also say that we let the market decide until it proved it couldn't decide wisely, and THEN we decided for it? I mean, the government did wait until the last minute to intervene, and before that they had pretty much free run.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: The right track
by JAlexoid on Tue 19th Jul 2011 18:16 in reply to "RE[4]: The right track"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

If we had truly let the market decide, we would have let more of those companies die because they overextended themselves and couldn't afford to pay for their foolishness and greed. It might have been more unpleasant in the short term, but it probably would have encouraged the financial sector to be more prudent in the long term.


Does US guarantee any amount of $$$ be returned to an owner of a bank account if the bank fails?

I would agree with you on that point, however:
- Had the banks sunk all the money in the accounts would have been literally gone. And people with accounts would be last in line to the looting.
- As a result of all money disappearing what would most companies pay salaries, taxes and rents with.
- The traditional banks will gamble with your money. There is literally nothing you can do about it, since there are no cash holding banks out there.
- No matter which of the Too Big To Fail institutions would have failed, you* personally would have felt the shock-wave.

And in accordance to natural laws of capitalism - gaining Too Big To Fail status is a goal as it results in higher profits.
BTW: Sweden made a better strategy to handling such situations with Nordea.

Reply Parent Score: 4