The document discusses the concept of "too big to fail" and its role in economic crises. It argues that allowing certain financial institutions to privatize profits while socializing losses through government bailouts undermines free enterprise. When large banks and corporations take on excessive risk knowing they will be bailed out, it leads to moral hazard. While government intervention may accelerate economic recovery, it comes at a high cost to taxpayers and increases national debt. The document suggests reinstating regulations like the Glass-Steagall Act to restrict risky activities by large banks and prevent institutions from growing too big and interconnected to fail.

1. Surname 1
Insert name
Course
Title
Date
Too big to fail
A financial institution so intertwined in the fabric of the state economy that its letdown
could be a basis a massive ripple consequence is considered “too big to fail”. Regrettably for the
taxpayers of any country, their hard earned money are the mere thing amid failure and salvation
for these corporations.Industry instability or poor management can ruin any industry, but the
bigger an organization gets, the bigger the guarantee damaged brought about by their failure. It is
thus the duty of an accountable administration to at no time leave their citizens susceptible to
such a disaster. The purpose of this essay is to validate that too big to fail strategy is what spun a
period of little growth into an awful monetary predicament from the time when there was the
Great Depression. It is a well documented that the what caused the economy of the United States
to start slipping in late 2007 was the housing market. As the economy was slipping, it still
succeeded to not slide into downturn status pending September 2008. It is less than spontaneous
that America's fifth principal financial organization, Lehman Brothers, filed for insolvency on
September 15, 2008, the very equivalent time the economy fell. The uncertainty of the market
headed to runs on finance organizations that in turn led to more bank letdowns, which led to
massive bailouts. The bailouts, though helpful at the time, pointed towards a first-time national
debt that had not been anticipated. Permitting securities companies banks, insurance companies,

2. Surname 2
holdings companies, amalgamations of the companies mentioned above to privatize profits and
expose losses due to irrational risk will ultimately ruin free enterprise as we discern it. Visit
myprivateresearcher.com for more information.
Currently, there is significant deliberation about the foundations of business cycles and
whether administration strategies can lessen them.” Just as there is no agreement now, modern-
day observers had numerous diverse views about the foundations of the Great Depression and the
fitting response to the administration. A limited number of economists implemented the Quantity
Theory of Money, which argues that variations in the money supply is the grounds for variations
in the rate level and can move the level of monetary activity for short epochs. These economists
claimed that the Fed ought to prevent devaluation by increasing the supply of money.
Too big to fail can be defined as “An organization whose letdown would severely hurt
the economy or financial constancy.” The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland showed that an
economic establishment was well-thought-out systemically imperative if it met the “four C’s
principle”. The “four C’s” are a correlation, context, contagion, and concentration. An
establishment covered by Title II of the Dodd – Frank Bill (written to protect against too big to
fail policy in the future) must originate eighty-five percent of its revenue from financial
activities. This revenue that are going forward, the only corporations the administration will
consider systemically authoritative are financial institutions, which is an alteration from the
bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors. The bill is unclear however on how big equals too big.
Any covered organization with ten billion dollars in assets must have a risk committee. Visit
myprivateresearcher.com for more information. A enclosed company with over fifty billion
dollars in possessions must have a submitted plan on how to wind down in case of failure and
cannot have more than twenty-five percent of its assets be in the form of credit. Finally, a mega-

3. Surname 3
bank is one having over five hundred billion dollars in assets, and no more than ten percent can
be credit. Though the bill does make dissimilarities about how much money in possessions a
corporation must have to experience certain regulations, it leaves the designation of universal
significance up to regulators to decide as that corporation is failing. In 2008, Bear Sterns was the
fifth largest monetary institution in the United States and consequently considered systemically
vital but Lehman Brothers was the fourth largest.
Not only have we seen it before, but we have seen it since the passage of Gramm-Leach-
Bliley, in the form of the largest bailout in the recent past. The Financial Services Modernization
Act of 1999, more ordinarily known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, abolished the last lingering
parts of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. This was done in order to offer more competition in the
financial facilities business. Visit myprivateresearcher.com for more information.
If larger banks are well-thought-out as safer investments than smaller banks are, they will
have the equivalent of a higher credit rating, which as consumers, we know means a lower
interest rate on credit. The mega-banks that have access to high credit lines at a low-interest rate
along with billions of dollars they hold in assets. This creates it conceivable for them to make
loans of the magnitude that large multinational companies require. Financial Institutions of this
size also make very substantial campaign contributions. The massive donations, along with the
unexpressed guarantees from the government that they will be saved by taxpayer money if they
do fail, allow these companies unjustified government influence. When campaign contributions
and lobbyists are effective, banks are helping to shape legislation as they did with the Financial
Services Modernization Act, which assures these banks can keep their dominance. These
competitive advantages cause the stock market, customers, and creditors to favor large banks,
accounting for less competition. In terms of long-term consequences, the government

4. Surname 4
intervention helped to alleviate the economy at an earlier rate than if the government had not had
intervened at all. If the government did not intervene and allowed the economy to correct itself
under the free market theory, then the rate at which the economy would take to recover would be
significantly longer, with higher unemployment rates. In addition to that, the US economy could
quite possibly have faced another great depression. However, despite stabilizing the economy at
a faster rate, there is a significant cost to the taxpayer and increase in the US’s national debt
which will take a considerable amount of time to recover
In the occasion of a budgetary crisis, the government will always attempt to stabilize the
economy by bailing out the largest and most interconnected corporations. In the case of the Great
Recession, the Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP) was the way that policymakers attempted to
stave off depression. Although when TARP money started being infused into the economy, the
financial crisis plateaued and even started to get slightly better, the program was flawed. When
banks accepted taxpayer money in order to save them from their mistakes, there were no
conditions attached. The more guidelines that are positioned in the banking system, the more
business will be driven by the shadow banking system. It is widely speculated that the latest
financial crisis was started in the shadow banking system because of risky investments and
behavior considered unacceptable in mainstream banking. By letting large banks continue to
exist and peeling back regulations, there may be more business-driven back to institutions that
have some transparency and lower risk.
If there is a solution to too big to fail, the government has not implemented it yet. The
Volker Rule, which was cut out of the Dodd-Frank bill, was an attempt to reinstate a modified
version of the Glass-Steagall Act. If approved, this rule would have again restricted banks

5. Surname 5
proprietary trading, trading for their accounts, investing in or maintaining hedge funds or
sequestered equity funds, and proprietary trading for their profit.
Visit myprivateresearcher.com for more information.