observer00

Where's the Outrage at the Banks?

Another point, folks. Has no one noticed that the banks that were "too big to fail" have only gotten larger? Evidently, there's no monopoly here [yeah, right]. If the gov't was truely looking out for the taxpayers [nice mental vacation], financial institutions would be limited in size & required to have a larger amount of assets to cover loans.

Where's the Outrage at the Banks?

[Drew Horn: Comments (68)
Banks are businesses with the objective of making as much money as they legally can. They are not charities, social workers, or community cheerleaders. They are much more than money lenders, they are (via leverage) money creators. And they always have been and will continue to be those things. We should expect them to act in all ways that maximize their profits and doing so isn't bad, it is capitalism.]==========...

I have no problem with businesses making money by providing customers with service of value. I do have a problem with businesses that gouge folks [e.g., banks, insurance, pharmaceutical companies, used car sales companies, lawyers, investment companies, etc.]. Obviously, the problem doesn't just start/stop with banks. Some basic business ethics should be communicated to business owners/employees & implemented. The good thing about capitalism is the choice it offers us. And the customer does indeed have a choice... We can vote with our wallet if the business "shafts" folks.

U.S.: Left Behind in Nuclear

I find it interesting when folks compare nuclear to non-nuclear; they don't compare all the costs/impacts (e.g., decontamination/decomm... licensing; waste [fossil fuels also emit radioactive material {naturally occurring radioactive material that becomes concentrated} in their wastes]; use of land [scenic/visual pollution]; legal permits; efficiency of the facility; etc.). Not telling the whole story, doesn't add much to the veracity of the author.

Breaking Up the Big Banks Is the Only Way to Eliminate 'Too Big to Fail'

Repeal of Glass-Steagall definitely didn't help the situation. Banks selling their home loans made things worse. To add insult to injury, the gov't pushed getting folks into a house. This artificially raised the price of homes & the gov't property tax income & allowed the Federal/State/local gov'ts to spend us into oblivion. So much for consumer protections for the public.

For some folks homeownership does not make sense; especially if folks have to move a lot for their job or don't have the income to support paying for home upkeep, insurance, taxes, and purchase/selling costs. If the gov't wanted to help the folks that rent, they could have used a tax credit for their rental housing costs that had to be invested (e.g., savings account or other).

Why Invest in Oil Over Alternative Energy

Notice risks of fatalities were not mentioned for oil and gas industry activities as well as costs for needed facility decontamination/decomm... once the facility has completed its life cycle (i.e., no more oil/gas). Seems rather one sided. Interesting, considering there has never been a fatality at a U.S. commercial nuclear facilty as a result of radiation exposure and more of the fuel is being efficiently "burned".

Should CEOs Sit on Other Companies' Boards?

I agree the CEOs should not be sitting on multiple boards. In addition, the directors should not be sitting on more than 3 boards. There is not way they can do a credible job of running or directing a company. Now while it's good to vent our spleens, I'd like to suggest an approach to dealing with this rather than expect the government to do something about it. If all of the share holders consistently vote against directors and CEO sitting on multiple boards, maybe this will stop. It's what I'm doing. It doesn't hurt to try. Sometimes "grass roots" efforts stunt the weeds:-)