Just curious - Is it a threat to A Nations Security when corporations get too big to allow to fail?

[dahunan]

Is there anything the Government could have or should have done to regulate the influence these "Too Big To Fail" corporations were allowed to have in the financial sector?

 

[MovingTarget]

Yes, give antitrust laws some teeth for the 21st century.

 

[TheoPetro]

This hits at the core of "what is a corporation?" Is their job to exist for the betterment of their shareholders or their stakeholders? Should companies be limited in size? If they arent could one eventually control the world's economy and do away w/ governments? Whats the most they should be able to control?

I have no idea what the "correct" answers to these questions are but it seems like this is a good time to start looking at just what the hell a company really is/should be.

 

[bamacre]

Which corporations were/are "Too Big To Fail?"

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Which corporations were/are "Too Big To Fail?"

AIG, C, and BAC?

 

[Jiggz]

The only big corporations or companies which are too big to fail are those that are gov't own! Otherwise, they all can fail!

 

[charrison]

The govt should have only propped up these corperations long enough to liquidate them.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Which corporations were/are "Too Big To Fail?"

In a sense, the Big 3 are. Apparently the parts manufacturers employ a massive number of people. The problem is that if GM and Chrysler go down, then they will drag a ton of smaller companies with them.

TBH I don't really have any idea what would happen if GM and Chrysler went under. I suppose we would have more people on welfare and collecting employment insurance. Honda and Toyota would probably purchase the factories for cheap, and eventually there would not be a net loss in terms of jobs. That can only happen if the economy doesn't tank completely though.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro
This hits at the core of "what is a corporation?" Is their job to exist for the betterment of their shareholders or their stakeholders? Should companies be limited in size? If they arent could one eventually control the world's economy and do away w/ governments? Whats the most they should be able to control?

I have no idea what the "correct" answers to these questions are but it seems like this is a good time to start looking at just what the hell a company really is/should be.

I think both Shareholders and Stakeholders should benefit. The problem is how to balance the 2.

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheoPetro
This hits at the core of "what is a corporation?" Is their job to exist for the betterment of their shareholders or their stakeholders? Should companies be limited in size? If they arent could one eventually control the world's economy and do away w/ governments? Whats the most they should be able to control?

I have no idea what the "correct" answers to these questions are but it seems like this is a good time to start looking at just what the hell a company really is/should be.

I think both Shareholders and Stakeholders should benefit. The problem is how to balance the 2.

Just to play devils advocate,
Why should stakeholders benefit? Say I own a house. My neighbor's house price is partially dependent on my house price so I would say that my neighbor is a stakeholder in my house. So if my goal is to benefit the shareholder (me) and the stakeholder (them) I should not do things that would lower the price of my house. What if I really want it painted orange though. Painting it orange would probably drop the price of the house a tad and would definitely impact the neighbor's home price. Do I benefit myself the shareholder by painting it or do I say "no lets think of the stakeholder too" and leave it its current color? Its kind of a stretch of an example but definite conflicts of interest arise between stakeholders and shareholders in a firm and many times its impossible to satisfy them both.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Jiggz
The only big corporations or companies which are too big to fail are those that are gov't own! Otherwise, they all can fail!

Agreed. And if there is otherwise a company that is too big to fail then it shouldn't have gotten that big to begin with without strict government guidelines that supercede what other private corporations are under.

 

[Moonbeam]

The supreme court did this when it declared them immortal beings.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheoPetro
This hits at the core of "what is a corporation?" Is their job to exist for the betterment of their shareholders or their stakeholders? Should companies be limited in size? If they arent could one eventually control the world's economy and do away w/ governments? Whats the most they should be able to control?

I have no idea what the "correct" answers to these questions are but it seems like this is a good time to start looking at just what the hell a company really is/should be.

I think both Shareholders and Stakeholders should benefit. The problem is how to balance the 2.

Just to play devils advocate,
Why should stakeholders benefit? Say I own a house. My neighbor's house price is partially dependent on my house price so I would say that my neighbor is a stakeholder in my house. So if my goal is to benefit the shareholder (me) and the stakeholder (them) I should not do things that would lower the price of my house. What if I really want it painted orange though. Painting it orange would probably drop the price of the house a tad and would definitely impact the neighbor's home price. Do I benefit myself the shareholder by painting it or do I say "no lets think of the stakeholder too" and leave it its current color? Its kind of a stretch of an example but definite conflicts of interest arise between stakeholders and shareholders in a firm and many times its impossible to satisfy them both.

Isn't it already like that? I.e. there are city codes that don't allow you to present your house in a certain way? That is the unfortunate side effect of democracy - in the guise of giving you more freedom, it actually takes some away because you have to "negotiate" with your neighbor who has an equal vote to you. Vs. a benevolent dictatorship that would make all decisions neutral to individuals and net positive to society. Of course those are pipe dreams and a republican democracy is the best we can get, but we can always strive towards what is right.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The supreme court did this when it declared them immortal beings.

Agreed.

...as usual, though, nobody's paying attention...

 

[hal2kilo]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The supreme court did this when it declared them immortal beings.

Agreed.

...as usual, though, nobody's paying attention...

First Post. Lurking for years.

But, this.

 

[Zebo]

I think a better question is what did government do to cause them to be too big to fail.

-Government in various efforts have steadily guaranteed every type of loan known to man. Wouldn't you Mr. Banker, invest in something if there was no down side? They did. Now government is feeing the heat.
-Government in various efforts have Guaranteed Pensions for private employees while at same time requiring pittance in deposit. Would you Mr. CEO, responsible to shareholder profit try and maximize your revenues instead of saving them for employees? They did too, now the government fears them collapsing.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Just to play devils advocate,
Why should stakeholders benefit? Say I own a house. My neighbor's house price is partially dependent on my house price so I would say that my neighbor is a stakeholder in my house. So if my goal is to benefit the shareholder (me) and the stakeholder (them) I should not do things that would lower the price of my house. What if I really want it painted orange though. Painting it orange would probably drop the price of the house a tad and would definitely impact the neighbor's home price. Do I benefit myself the shareholder by painting it or do I say "no lets think of the stakeholder too" and leave it its current color? Its kind of a stretch of an example but definite conflicts of interest arise between stakeholders and shareholders in a firm and many times its impossible to satisfy them both.

That is very similar to what Houston wants to do. They want the taxpayers to pay off peoples credit cards that are buying homes, that can't afford them because of the cards. So I would pay off my new neighbors debt so they could buy the home. It is supposed to benefit me because it builds up the neighborhood and raises my homes value.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheoPetro
This hits at the core of "what is a corporation?" Is their job to exist for the betterment of their shareholders or their stakeholders? Should companies be limited in size? If they arent could one eventually control the world's economy and do away w/ governments? Whats the most they should be able to control?

I have no idea what the "correct" answers to these questions are but it seems like this is a good time to start looking at just what the hell a company really is/should be.

I think both Shareholders and Stakeholders should benefit. The problem is how to balance the 2.

Just to play devils advocate,
Why should stakeholders benefit? Say I own a house. My neighbor's house price is partially dependent on my house price so I would say that my neighbor is a stakeholder in my house. So if my goal is to benefit the shareholder (me) and the stakeholder (them) I should not do things that would lower the price of my house. What if I really want it painted orange though. Painting it orange would probably drop the price of the house a tad and would definitely impact the neighbor's home price. Do I benefit myself the shareholder by painting it or do I say "no lets think of the stakeholder too" and leave it its current color? Its kind of a stretch of an example but definite conflicts of interest arise between stakeholders and shareholders in a firm and many times its impossible to satisfy them both.

In a General sense and not specifically your example, the Stakeholders should have influence on decisions simply because they have created the Conditions that make it possible for the Shareholders to Profit. This always means the Stakeholders have made sacrifices and compromises in order to create those Conditions. Certain Freedoms are limited in any Society, whether that Society values Freedom or not.

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheoPetro
This hits at the core of "what is a corporation?" Is their job to exist for the betterment of their shareholders or their stakeholders? Should companies be limited in size? If they arent could one eventually control the world's economy and do away w/ governments? Whats the most they should be able to control?

I have no idea what the "correct" answers to these questions are but it seems like this is a good time to start looking at just what the hell a company really is/should be.

I think both Shareholders and Stakeholders should benefit. The problem is how to balance the 2.

Just to play devils advocate,
Why should stakeholders benefit? Say I own a house. My neighbor's house price is partially dependent on my house price so I would say that my neighbor is a stakeholder in my house. So if my goal is to benefit the shareholder (me) and the stakeholder (them) I should not do things that would lower the price of my house. What if I really want it painted orange though. Painting it orange would probably drop the price of the house a tad and would definitely impact the neighbor's home price. Do I benefit myself the shareholder by painting it or do I say "no lets think of the stakeholder too" and leave it its current color? Its kind of a stretch of an example but definite conflicts of interest arise between stakeholders and shareholders in a firm and many times its impossible to satisfy them both.

In a General sense and not specifically your example, the Stakeholders should have influence on decisions simply because they have created the Conditions that make it possible for the Shareholders to Profit. This always means the Stakeholders have made sacrifices and compromises in order to create those Conditions. Certain Freedoms are limited in any Society, whether that Society values Freedom or not.

Should stakeholders have a say in the direction of the firm though?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheoPetro
This hits at the core of "what is a corporation?" Is their job to exist for the betterment of their shareholders or their stakeholders? Should companies be limited in size? If they arent could one eventually control the world's economy and do away w/ governments? Whats the most they should be able to control?

I have no idea what the "correct" answers to these questions are but it seems like this is a good time to start looking at just what the hell a company really is/should be.

I think both Shareholders and Stakeholders should benefit. The problem is how to balance the 2.

Just to play devils advocate,
Why should stakeholders benefit? Say I own a house. My neighbor's house price is partially dependent on my house price so I would say that my neighbor is a stakeholder in my house. So if my goal is to benefit the shareholder (me) and the stakeholder (them) I should not do things that would lower the price of my house. What if I really want it painted orange though. Painting it orange would probably drop the price of the house a tad and would definitely impact the neighbor's home price. Do I benefit myself the shareholder by painting it or do I say "no lets think of the stakeholder too" and leave it its current color? Its kind of a stretch of an example but definite conflicts of interest arise between stakeholders and shareholders in a firm and many times its impossible to satisfy them both.

In a General sense and not specifically your example, the Stakeholders should have influence on decisions simply because they have created the Conditions that make it possible for the Shareholders to Profit. This always means the Stakeholders have made sacrifices and compromises in order to create those Conditions. Certain Freedoms are limited in any Society, whether that Society values Freedom or not.

Should stakeholders have a say in the direction of the firm though?

Not really or not much. I think Regulation is the only way to implement such things, it certainly can't be done constantly or more accurately on the fly. Lay out ground rules, then let them go at it. Once in awhile the Ground Rules will be insufficient or too binding, adjust as necessary.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The supreme court did this when it declared them immortal beings.

How can that be? The government answers to the people! It would never do anything to harm us!

Clearly the answer is more government.