Did he know something that we do not comprehend now?
Indeed, I am confident that Adam Smith would have seen what we refuse to see in Washington, DC today regarding banking lobbyists. And now our """"Too Big to Fail"""" doctrine will be a significant future obstacle. Mr. Paul Krugman wrote the book ""The Return to Depression Economics"" not too long ago, in which he explains that because of the too-big-to-fail doctrine, the largest institutions are working very hard to grow larger and larger.
As they grow larger, they gain an advantage over all other banks on the market; they can take greater risks, knowing they are too large to collapse, and regulators must back off when they encounter difficulties. Paul Krugman compares this to your adolescent child borrowing your credit card, charging up a storm, and then being unable to make payments. Instead of taking away their credit card, you simply pay the bill and let them retain the card, telling them to """"please don't do that again.""""
Do you believe that if you did this with your adolescent son or daughter, they would have learned their lesson? Of course not; nine times out of ten, they will do it again knowing there are no repercussions or penalties for using someone else's credit card recklessly. Why would they cease such behavior if there is no accountability, no punishment, and no financial consequences? It's a rhetorical query, so you're not required to respond, but think about it for a moment.
Andrew Jackson intuitively understood that if we allow banks to become """"too big to fail"""" and if we continue to bail them out, they will ultimately become too big to control. It is pleasing to learn that Mr. Paul Krugman makes light of this apparent fact in his book. The concept of ""too big to fail"" does not sit well with the American public, and I'm confident you'll agree that it sounds completely absurd. One might wonder what became of common sense. Please consider the following.""
" - https://www.affordablecebu.com/
