Its evolved from a catchy phrase, to a mantra, then policy ordoxody, and now to a proposed law in Congress.
The "Too Big to Fail" legislation is just two pages. BTW, which Treasury secretary was derided for being too vague and brazen in his two page proposal on TARP? And, as reported previously, it was introduced by (socialist) Senator Sanders who couldn't contradict itself more if it wanted:
Section 2: "The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to Congress a list of all commerical banks, investment banks, hedge funds, and insurance companies that are too big to fail."
Section 3: One year later..."the Secretary of the Treasury shall break up entities included on the Too Big to Fail List..."
Ok, fair enough. At least give him credit for being honest. But wait...
Section 4: "For purposes of this Act, the term "Too Big to Fail" means any entity that has grown so large that its failure would have a catastrophic effect..."
So which is it Bernie? Do you want to break up just financial institutions? Or do you expect us to entrust Treasury and you to responsibly expropriate (which might be an oxymoron) anything you deem "too big to exist?"
When I first read the bill I thought to myself how foolish is this guy? Well, after some sleuthing I realized I'm the dumby. Sanders telegraphed his intentions shortly after TARP was introduced in Sept. 2008:
"Finally, we need to protect ourselves from being at the mercy of giant companies that are "too big to fail," that is, companies who are so large that their failure would cause systemic harm to the economy. We need to assess which companies fall into this category and insist they are broken up."
Expect this bill to end up in the paper shredder. The Frank bill, while in need of major revisions, is at least representative of a free and stable economy, and worthy of debate. Unlike this one which is - dare I say it - something only the Bolksheviks would rubber stamp.