Let AA die already. Unlike many other countries, there's no monopoly/"too big to fail" companies in the aviation industry in America afaik. It's not that hard to let other companies to absorb AA's passenger capacity, especially in 2020. The employees are "arguably" worth the tax payer support through unemployment/Covid benefits to carry them over, but that's it. All these tax money that goes to direct to the company (i.e. the executives/upper management) instead of to the employees (none-stock holding kind) is always bad policy (read: corruption).

This movie should be required viewing for every American.

So should "The Smartest Guys in the Room" as well as HBO's "Too Big To Fail".

Followed by "Zootopia" just because I like that movie a lot.

1)Yes, but it's the recourse when your expectations aren't met that I'm discussing. Also, the base level of service is lower for Uber than a licensed taxi, no?

2)Yes, that's exactly what I mean...they aren't regulated taxis, they are basically operating illegally everywhere, but abused loopholes and used misrepresentation to gain a foothold, then grew too fast to control...or just were ignored until they took enough work from licensed taxi drivers, and now they're being considered 'too big to fail' and still allowed to operate in most places (not all). I would never use them for exactly that reason...as essentially black market taxis, I would expect little insurance against improper service or damage. It's not JUST the drivers, they also treat the rule of law with contempt. Why would one not expect them to treat customers with the same distain and carelessness?

/giggle

When it comes to the JSF, you can't fix stupid. In the designers, the people who think it's too big to fail, or the fanboys... = )

I hate the term TBTF. If the corporation is too big to fail then don't let it or cause it to fail but rather put a few key executives in the slammer for 20 years and fine them into poverty. The corp. will replace the executives with new people who might think twice about the legality or morality of the methods they use to increase shareholder value and earn bonuses.

The drivers are too big to fail?

Teabaggers are not 'affiliated' with the Libertarian Party? WOW! That's not what I see. When I see 'Libertarian' rallies on TV or at my local court house, they are filled with idiots in tri corner hats with tea bags attached and with poorly spelled signs saying things like 'keep your guverment hands of my medicare' and 'get the fed away from my soshial security' and "No Moar Regulashuns". Perhaps the "Tea Party" party has technically 'joined' the Republicans, but many Teabaggers are Libertarian, and nearly all are libertarian.
Actually I think you asked if I heard the idiot in the video say it...but I get your point, you obviously believe as he does. At the same time, you complained that:
" Is it the limited liability, wherein BP was able to cause billions of dollars in damage, but because US law protects corporate liability, they only had to pay in the hundred of millions? Or the corporate tax loopholes? Or the corporate welfare they receive in taxpayer subsidies? Or how too-big-to-fail corps have their loses socialized by us, and their wins privatized?"...seeming to call for better regulations that would stop those issues. IF that's what you were saying, I could agree with you, but you are now backing away from that interpretation of what you said...so what DID you mean by all that...that those things are terrible, and will be solved by removing government regulation and enforcement? If THAT'S what you mean, please explain how that works.

EDIT: I see, the issue here is you've swallowed the 'corporate power/irresponsibility comes solely from the government, and will only be solved by removing government' idea hook line and sinker. I have not. I do not see the problem of corporate misconduct being solved, or even helped by less regulation/oversight. The very idea flies in the face of logic, just like the 'self regulation' fallacy.
Never happened, never will. Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha!

@newtboy: "I WAS libertarian before the Teabaggers insanity infected them and they became the party of NO government."

Hmmmmmm. Seems specious. Are you talking about the Libertarian Party? Or the Republican Party, which is where the Tea Party's political affiliations are aligned? Because you do realize there's a different between small "l" libertarians, which is the political philosophy, and big "L" Libertarians, which is the party... and Tea Partiers, which are Republicans.


"The owners of corporations may derive some legal shielding thanks to their relationship with government and/or the law regarding who/what is legally responsible for who/what's actions, they are not creations of it in the way he insists."

Some legal shielding? Which of these corporate protections offered and legitimized by the government is "some" of the shielding? Is it the limited liability, wherein BP was able to cause billions of dollars in damage, but because US law protects corporate liability, they only had to pay in the hundred of millions? Or the corporate tax loopholes? Or the corporate welfare they receive in taxpayer subsidies? Or how too-big-to-fail corps have their loses socialized by us, and their wins privatized?

Because that seems more than just "some legal shielding."

Your video, Too Big to Fail and Getting Bigger, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 14 Badge!

The monthly updates on YT, the ones you introduced me to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMXfBm0IPd0

I completely forgot about the podcast, so cheers for the reminder. Is there any "proper" download link for the podcasts? I've been picking the dropbox url from TruthDig's source code by hand, there's got to be an easier way...

As for Taibbi:
The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet

It's about how the too-big-to-fail/jail banks became a cartell in the physical commodities market. The story itself was reported on before, primarily the aluminium shenanigans of Goldman Sachs.

Like @Grimm said, these fellas did not just profit from a flaw in the system. They spent vast amounts of time and money lobbying for changes to the system, changes which made these exploits possible in the first place. Exploits that in most cases are still in violation of the law over here, but the oversight was starved out to a point of non-existence or simply handed over to entities they should be monitoring in the first place.

As a result, the City of London in particular accumulated enough economical leverage to hold the entire country hostage, knowing full well how a sweep of the City would lead to catastrophic ripples not only through the UK and Europe, but the entire bloody world. So now they can do whatever they please without fear of repercussions as seen in the case of HSBC.

This selective application of the law breeds contempt for the law, particularly if compared to the poor who get hammered for the slightest inconsistency in their paperwork. Too big to fail undermines the free market, but too big to jail undermines the basic rule of law.

Even in the very few cases that were prosecuted, only the institution was penalised, never any high level individual. Some of those responsible need to be held accountable, otherwise the riots in Tottenham will look like child's play compared to what will happen the next time these idiots drive the entire economy to the brink of collapse.

By the way, I'm still waiting for someone to end up in jail for the rigging of Libor or ISDAfix.

Between wars of aggression (Iraq, Afghanistan) and the violation of national sovereignty (Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Jemen, Somalia), the running of gulags (Gitmo, Baghram) and torture facilities (airport in Mogadishu), the NDAA and the war on whistleblowers on the one hand and the entire corporate corruption (too big to fail/jail in particular) on the other hand, there's plenty of reason to take a good look at what the latest administrations have been responsible for.

But hey, Benghazi and the IRS are the real scandals, right?

Not Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou and Bradley Manning or Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Certainly not HSBC or Gitmo. And neither nightly JSOC raids nor cruise missile attacks, much less torture and kidnapping.

helping criminals and known terrorists groups are ok. but dealing with pot money.... just need to become too big to fail.

@aaronfr and what if I said, "the State and the Church should be separate", would that imply I want priests getting away with murder?

My problem is not my original comment, it's you interpreting "get government out of the economy" in the worst possible light to make a quip about libertarianism and get cheap upvotes.

Government is in bed with the economy, with the monetary system, crooked financial institutions, bailing out banks that are too big to fail... is it OK for me, Mr. @aaronfr, to want the State to separate itself from all that shit, much like society agreed centuries ago that the State + Church = trouble? Or is that too much libertarian nonsense?

It makes me sad that you think socialism has anything to do with cooperation, because there's no room for cooperation when there's no private ownership or capital. Socialism's relationship with the economy is that of central planning, logically, and historically.

"You know, I just want to note on this. There are district attorneys and U.S. attorneys who are out there every day squeezing ordinary citizens on sometimes very thin grounds. And taking them to trial in order to make an example, as they put it. I'm really concerned that too big to fail has become too big for trial," she said. "That just seems wrong to me."

Clinton/Warren 2016