Quote :

"And since then, I've covered a number of issues and different things. But it all seems to come back to this one issue of "follow the money." Who's got the money? And whoever has the money has the power. And right now, in America, tonight, Larry, the richest 1 percent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined."

and

Quote :

"Capitalism, in the last year, has proven that it's failed. All the basic tenets of what we've talked about the free market, about free enterprise and competition just completely fell apart. As soon as they lost, essentially, our money, they came running to the federal government for a bailout -- for welfare, for socialism. "

and

Quote :

"these people down on Wall Street had taken our money and made bets with it. I mean, they essentially created this invisible virtual casino with people's money -- people's pension funds, people's 401(k)s. They took this money and they made bets. And then they made bets on the bets. And then they took out insurance policies on the bets. And then they took out insurance against the insurance -- the credit default swaps."

and

Quote :

"General Motors, that year, made a profit of $4 billion. And yet they had just laid off another 30,000 people. Now, why would you lay people off when you're making a record profit of $4 billion? I mean that was totally insane. But they thought, well, you know, we can make a bigger profit. Maybe we can make $4.2 billion if we move those jobs to Mexico."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/24/lkl.michael.moore/index.html


[Edited on September 24, 2009 at 8:05 AM. Reason : article link added]

9/24/2009 8:04:19 AM

did capitalism fail or did the people in charge of it just make some horrible decisions? I don't think the system failed as much as the people inside of it did

9/24/2009 8:20:38 AM

Michael Moore has good intentions, but he sure makes a good attempt at destroying his message through his general douchebaggery. When I see clips from the film of him standing in front of some financial building with a microphone saying something like, "ATTENTION WALL STREET BANKERS, GIVE US BACK OUR MONEY," I just roll my eyes. There are much more powerful ways to get your message across and doing things like that do nothing but annoy people.

9/24/2009 8:33:44 AM

So all the money he's made from this evil capitalist system by putting out shitty movies and this elitist rich 1 percent that he's no doubt a part of...it sure does seem hypocritical that a man who has made a very good living exploiting consumers at the box office for personal gain would slam the system that keeps his fat ass fed.

9/24/2009 8:53:32 AM

Michael Moore is the Rush Limbaugh of the left, except probably with less influence. I pretty much shut down when people mention him as a news source.

9/24/2009 9:03:27 AM

FAR less influence

regardless of some people saying he skews both sides, Jon Stewart is the Rush Limbaugh of the left

9/24/2009 9:15:11 AM

Quote :

"Capitalism, in the last year, has proven that it's failed."

what an idiot

9/24/2009 9:19:47 AM

9/24/2009 9:20:13 AM

Quote :

"did capitalism fail or did the people in charge of it just make some horrible decisions? I don't think the system failed as much as the people inside of it did"

your statement can be applied to almost every system that has been applied previously. i.e. communism didn't fail in the USSR but rather the self-serving people who were in charge failed that system.

If no person can be trusted to lead the system without inevitable failure then is the human condition not an inherent flaw in the system?

Quote :

"Jon Stewart is the Rush Limbaugh of the left"

Not hardly. Maybe if you were talking about the amount of influence held over a demographic, but there are not as many JS watchers as their are RL listeners, and those who watch the daily show are far less inclined to be extremist in policy than those who listen to Limbaugh.

John Stewart isn't even an O'Reiley of the left.

9/24/2009 9:23:07 AM

Rush Limbaugh is a media figure who talks about politics. This is about all he has in common with anyone on the left. I don't think there is a person on the left who has a tenth of his influence, and who applies the same modus operandi (fear-mongering, exploiting ignorance, creating division for division's sake).

9/24/2009 9:25:19 AM

Quote :

""did capitalism fail or did the people in charge of it just make some horrible decisions? I don't think the system failed as much as the people inside of it did""

I don't know if captialism as a whole failed, but the same people are still in charge of it, and they haven't changed. Why would they?

9/24/2009 9:31:27 AM

Quote :

"If no person can be trusted to lead the system without inevitable failure then is the human condition not an inherent flaw in the system?"

Which is why the argument that we need more human interference via government control is that much more ironic.

9/24/2009 9:32:32 AM

^ not really.
Obviously some human or humans must control the process. So the question is: who and how many. Regulations attempt to wrench complete control away from a secretive powerful-few that run the big companies and spread control and information sharing out to a larger group of people and interests

9/24/2009 9:38:17 AM

Actually, it indicates that less interference is no better (or worse) than more interference.

9/24/2009 9:38:59 AM

this review of the film (or.... largely of Michael Moore himself), by a liberal in a liberal publication, pretty much nails why I already planning on seeing this. After seeing Bowling and Fahrenheit 9/11, I didn't feel like seeing Sicko or any new Moore films
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2009/09/23/capitalism_a_love_story/

Quote :

"But 20 years after "Roger & Me," "Capitalism: A Love Story" proves that Michael Moore's greatest subject is himself. This is a love story, all right, but it has less to do with the flaws of capitalism than it does with Moore's unwavering fondness for the sound of his own voice, and for what he perceives as his own vast cleverness. As with all Michael Moore's films, that's not to say he doesn't have a point, buried in there somewhere amid all the Silly Putty-stretched facts and cartoony music. It's possible to agree with Moore in theory and still find his tactics sloppy and ineffective (though his zombie-like followers don't like to allow for the existence of any potential gray areas, maybe because gray areas tend to demand actual thought)."

this always bothered me - the "i'm an everyday, know-nothing schlub"

Quote :

"The problem with Moore's approach is that he reveals these injustices as if he's just discovered them himself. Similarly, "Capitalism: A Love Story" will be revelatory and helpful to those Rip Van Winkles who slept through the fall of 2008 and the early part of 2009, who didn't realize that hardworking American people are being pushed out of their homes in record numbers as a direct result of corporate greed. It's not Moore's core beliefs that are grating: It's his consistently wide-eyed approach, his presupposition that you need to adopt an aura of innocence in order to be outraged. In Michael Moore's world, to be enlightened and outraged makes you one of the elite -- better to be an underinformed Everyman, so he can spoon-feed the facts to you and therefore reinforce his own reason for existing."

Quote :

"But his respect for the priesthood does make sense in terms of his misguided sense of pageantry. In "Capitalism: A Love Story," he can't resist showing himself outside the hallowed halls of Citibank (and Chase, and AIG), trying to gain access and, of course, being refused. Those scenes have become tired staples of every Moore film, a recycled vaudeville act that's supposed to be funny, surprising or outrageous each time we see it. Scenes like that are necessary to reinforce Moore's status as an outsider, and his loyal fans, it seems, never get tired of seeing them. At this point, Moore appears to be making movies specifically for those fans -- he's no longer even pretending to try to win over the general populace. With "Capitalism: A Love Story," he's preaching to people who have already been converted, 20 times over. As for the others, no matter how loudly he shouts through his bullhorn, he's not going to get their attention. "

9/24/2009 9:49:30 AM

Quote :

"Regulations attempt to wrench complete control away from a secretive powerful-few that run the big companies and spread control and information sharing out to a larger group of people and interests"

Do you really believe this? Do you think for a minute it is surprising that Goldman Sachs has turned some of the largest profits in it's history after the financial meltdown last year considering the utterly incestuous relationship between the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department, and GS?

Who are the regulators which decide on a daily basis how to apply regulations? You don't know them? Yeah, neither do I. They're anonymous. And who do you think they receive guidance from? Yeah, more unelected officials. And who do their supervisors receive guidance / pressure from? Congressmen. What prompts these congressmen to act in this way? The donations of the very companies they're supposed to regulate. The net effect is the enrichment and entrenchment of government bureaucracy.

The "secretive powerful few" who ran GM into the ground, or any of the banks really, should have been allowed to fail, giving the opportunity to the "non-secretive, non-powerful, many" with new ideas the opportunity to try new ideas. But instead, that same government propped up the old.

The government, with few exceptions, is not interested in protecting the little guy.



and this kind of commentary:

Quote :

""Capitalism: A Love Story" will be revelatory and helpful to those Rip Van Winkles who slept through the fall of 2008 and the early part of 2009, who didn't realize that hardworking American people are being pushed out of their homes in record numbers as a direct result of corporate greed."

Shows that the writer has absolutely 0 understanding of what happened over the last decade.

9/24/2009 9:51:24 AM

I still like Michael Moore.

I think the quality of his movies has been declining since "Bowling for Columbine", but thats probably because his more recent movies have been more straight-forward message films. If you watch Columbine, you will see that it isn't a straight-forward "guns are bad" movie. Its an exploration into American culture that actually doesn't draw many straight conclusions and leaves a lot of the thinking up to the viewer.

I have not seen Moore's latest movie, but it looks like it will be a one-dimensional, "capitalism is bad", picture. That's kinda sad. I think the financial crisis is at least as complicated as America's relationship with guns and deserves a more consideration than a few stunts and slogans.

That being said, I will probably still go watch the film (I actually own all of MM's documentaries I think...and I'm considering buying Canadian Bacon just to round out the collection!).

[Edited on September 24, 2009 at 9:53 AM. Reason : ``]

9/24/2009 9:52:24 AM

^ Moore's entertaining--I actually enjoyed Roger and Me. You just have to set your far-left bullshit filter to maximum.

9/24/2009 9:59:55 AM

Quote :

"If no person can be trusted to lead the system without inevitable failure then is the human condition not an inherent flaw in the system? "

Which is precisely why capitalist systems are in general better than socialist or command systems. Capitalism working requires 2 things to work well, access to information and a neutral method of dispute resolution. After that, simply allowing people the power to act in their own interest will over the long run produce the best results.

Other systems by their very nature requires a person or persons to lead the system, in addition to the previous requirements.

9/24/2009 11:37:26 AM

Quote :

"those who watch the daily show are far less inclined to be extremist in policy than those who listen to Limbaugh"

link?

9/24/2009 11:48:02 AM

Quote :

"that hardworking American people are being pushed out of their homes in record numbers as a direct result of corporate greed."

Really? I figured the main reason people were being pushed out of thier homes was because they werent paying their mortgage. NOPE corporate GREED is forcing them out. LOL

9/24/2009 11:55:27 AM

Quote :

"I think the financial crisis is at least as complicated as America's relationship with guns and deserves a more consideration than a few stunts and slogans."

Don't bring random objects into this son. Our relationship with the AUTOMOBILE is something that deserves far more consideration than our relationship with guns. There's nothing wrong with the current firearm situation in many states, although the laws are so very inconsistent from state to state that some places are way too restrictive. There is no state in this country that is under-restricted where firearms are concerned.

The operation of motor vehicles in this country, however, is so unrestricted it's ridiculous.

9/24/2009 12:16:54 PM

That Salon.com review basically expanded on what I said in my first reply.

9/24/2009 1:06:57 PM

I like his investigative style.

He runs up on people, and they get caught off-guard, and accidentally tell the truth. Like, they just blurt it out. It's the best.

I think this movie is going to be even-handed (in that it bashes all of DC), and I think there is a specific kind of capitalism that he is attacking (you know, the kind that made it appropriate to charge 37 percent interest on a credit card). I don't see much wrong with that.

9/24/2009 1:30:44 PM

Quote :

"eyedrb: really? I figured the main reason people were being pushed out of thier homes was because they werent paying their mortgage. NOPE corporate GREED is forcing them out. LOL"

Here's an example of straight-up corporate greed that has happened to thousands of (former) homeowners. You have a job and make your payments for five years. You lose your job. You have enough in savings to make a few months of payments plus unemployment for six more months. Then you eventually miss two payments. You tighten your belt, miraculously find another job, and just in time, you come up with the money to cover this month plus the two missed payments. But at that point they've tacked on so many fines, fees, and penalties that you can't cover it. You could cover it over the next three months, but they will only accept full payment of everything right now, and if you can't cover it all right now, that's more fines, fees, and penalties...

If you manage to scrounge the cash together, they're happy cause they just nailed you for tons of extra dough. If you can't manage to get it together, they're even happier cause they just got your fucking house.

[Edited on September 24, 2009 at 1:54 PM. Reason : ]

9/24/2009 1:50:37 PM

Quote :

"I have not seen Moore's latest movie, but it looks like it will be a one-dimensional, "capitalism is bad", picture. That's kinda sad. I think the financial crisis is at least as complicated as America's relationship with guns and deserves a more consideration than a few stunts and slogans."

I've seen some interviews with Moore on this, and I don't get the feeling it's actually a "capitalism is bad" movie, but I think Moore is almost marketing it this way to kind of "trick" people into seeing it.

I bet it'll be more like Bowling for Columbine (not that it was without its flaws) where he more speculates on the underlying mechanisms.

9/24/2009 1:55:13 PM

Any human system will inevitably fail eventually, hopefully Moore makes this clear before bashing Capitalism to death.

9/24/2009 2:06:34 PM

Quote :

"If you manage to scrounge the cash together, they're happy cause they just nailed you for tons of extra dough. If you can't manage to get it together, they're even happier cause they just got your fucking house. "

What are they going to do with your house, who are they going to sell it to right now? They don't want it, they'd much rather have your money.

9/24/2009 2:22:08 PM

I hated Fahrenheit 911, but really liked Sicko. I will be giving this new film a chance.

Quote :

"Not hardly. Maybe if you were talking about the amount of influence held over a demographic, but there are not as many JS watchers as their are RL listeners, and those who watch the daily show are far less inclined to be extremist in policy than those who listen to Limbaugh."

The other big difference is Stewart's viewers watch for entertainment, not to be told how to think. Stewart expresses his own opinions frequently, but never tells his audience how they should think and feel.

9/24/2009 2:25:17 PM

I can understand your logic bridg, but I feel that it is wrong. Banks certainly dont want your house, not in this market. Plus your scenerio is VERY small and NOT the main reason people are getting kicked out of thier house, esp due to CORPORATE GREED that caused all this apparently. hahaha The ONLY reason they are getting kicked out is bc they arent making the payments.

9/24/2009 2:40:23 PM

i think a more apt example is push AR mortgages on people who can't afford them and/or don't really know what they're getting into.

[Edited on September 24, 2009 at 2:44 PM. Reason : redundant]

9/24/2009 2:44:06 PM

Quote :

"i think a more apt example is push AR mortgages on people who can't afford them and/or don't really know what they're getting into. "

Seems to me to be a problem with the borrower, not the lender. Im not sure how you get to the greedy corporation boogie man from this. Of course its much easier to be a victim to accept responsiblity, esp for your bad decision.

9/24/2009 2:46:53 PM

I think sarijoul is on to something.

But we can't discount the government's role. The government encouraged those banks to make those loans.

I'd say another instance in corporate greed would be when they wrote loans to people who they knew couldn't cover them, and then bundled up the bad loans and sold them like they were actually worth something.

Or when sometime around the mid-90s they started pushing second mortgages on to people as just a new way to manage money. I remember seeing commercials that were like, "Want a new kitchen? The money just may be in your house!" And I thought it was so cool that you could get free money to remodel your house. HA!

Second mortgages used to be a last, last resort. Like, the kid's about to start college, I just got sick and lost my job, and my wife's gambling habit cost us our savings... But somewhere along the line, banks (and their advertisers) started pushing this notion that it was actually smart money management to get a second (or third) mortgage. Come on, that's deceptive and greedy.

9/24/2009 3:08:57 PM

Quote :

"But we can't discount the government's role. The government encouraged those banks to make those loans."

The banks making the loan was, ultimately, the worst decision which was encouraged by the government. I though you were PRO big gov't? Without the meddling, we wouldn't be in the predicament.

9/24/2009 3:13:32 PM

^exactly. dont forget the insurance companies who had to back these mortgages too. A big cluster fuck that was started from the VERY top.


Now back to coorporate greed bridg. It was the individual who decided on what home to buy or whether they wanted to cash out thier equity to buy something they wanted. Im not sure how you guys get back to coorporate greed. I suppose you guys hold McDonalds greed accountable for the obese who eat there constantly? Its along the same reasoning, except you dont have 50 documents to sign when you order a big mac making sure you know what you are getting into.

9/24/2009 3:20:28 PM

Quote :

"Seems to me to be a problem with the borrower, not the lender"

Incorrect sir. I do not deny the responsibility of the borrower, but there is significant weight on the shoulders of the lender. Lenders are supposed to lend responsibly just as borrowers are supposed to borrow responsibly.

The difference in these two factors is that the borrowers listened to the experts, being the lenders, and took it at face value. In that light the lenders have a higher level of responsibility for the end result, especially since a major contributing factor of their behavior was that if people did foreclose the borrower would have payments made and a home for a place they could theoretically sale at a higher value.

9/24/2009 3:23:31 PM

^I do agree with you to an extent. And for the most part these lenders were pushed to make these riskier loans. Most were quickly sold to our govt through fannie/freddy. Or packaged into investments bc of the rising housing bubble.

I do see your point. But it was was borrower that picks out thier dream house, is informed of thier payments, borrowing amount, and what type of loan they are signing up for and sign to this fact several several times. Then to claim they didnt know ANYTHING about their loan. The individual and the bank were both counting on the housing prices to increase, this obviously is a great situation for both involved, it lowers risk to the lender and increases "wealth" in the borrower. However, again, some individuals took thier equity out to increase their lifestyle beyong their means....again hoping the growth of thier own equity would pay for it.

I do agree that some companies did not act appropriately, but still feel the overwelming majority of the bad decisions were on the individuals. And I really have a problem with the statement that coorporate greed is forcing these people out of their home. I think greed would be correct, but it wasnt coorporate imo.

[Edited on September 24, 2009 at 3:32 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on September 24, 2009 at 3:34 PM. Reason : geez, I am really shitty at english.]

9/24/2009 3:32:26 PM

I once had a roomate who worked at Citigroup presenting mortgages to customers. He's told me that mortgages are simply beyond the understanding of most people, and even the ones who've done their homework have often been misinformed. He used to try to educate people about the fine-print, but getting them to seriously consider the entirety of the agreements they signed was like pulling teeth. They just wanted to know the monthly payment and interest rate, and his bosses encouraged him not to tell people when they couldn't reasonably afford a loan.
[/ancedotal]

9/24/2009 3:33:11 PM

Companies that made bad loans should have gone belly up and there should not have been any bail outs. That is how the private sector should work. You run a business well, you succeed. You run it poorly then you fail. No government safety net.

9/24/2009 4:04:37 PM

^yep. And the people who cannot afford thier house should lose it.

9/24/2009 4:06:25 PM

... and then the economy tumbles ... complete finacial collapse ... frome resession to depression ... soup lines ... total business failures ... homelessness ... poverty ...

But at least no one will have to lose their ideological stance ... And their longheld theories can remain intact ... Victory ...

9/24/2009 4:23:04 PM

Depressions require actions to be taken by the Government, actions which reasonable people understand to be stupid nowadays. As such, allowing everything on wallstreet to collapse would have caused a severe recession, more severe than we have had, but if I understand the general theory nowadays, the recession would end about the same time as this one is going to end, only without $10 trillion in public debt.

Life is tradeoffs. Is a less severe recession really worth all this public debt and public ownership?

9/24/2009 4:28:36 PM

Quote :

"Depressions require actions to be taken by the Government, actions which reasonable people understand to be stupid nowadays."

First of all, you are so vague that I can't figure out what the hell you are trying to say.

Second of all, it wasn't a just Wallstreet collapse (where stocks tumble), it was a complete financial collapse - where most financial institutions go out of business. You are deluded if you think it would have been just another resession. This was going to be a big tumble. The truth is, we dodge a bullet. You should be thankful for the government action. The bailouts didn't start with Obama. Bush was scared shitless ...

[Edited on September 24, 2009 at 4:56 PM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

9/24/2009 4:55:50 PM

Quote :

"But at least no one will have to lose their ideological stance"

the resurrection of Keynesian economics is ample evidence that ideology trumps reality. But people love Keynes, he made fiscal irresponsibility the "economically sound" thing to do.

9/24/2009 4:56:04 PM

How did capitalism fail?

Companies who made poor decisions failed......

Companies who made good decisions did not fail....

Thats capitalism 101.

Sorry, Businesses must fail in capitalism.....thats how we get better.

9/24/2009 4:58:13 PM

Quote :

"Second of all, it wasn't a just Wallstreet collapse (where stocks tumble), it was a complete financial collapse - where most financial institutions go out of business. You are deluded if you think it would have been just another resession. This was going to be a big tumble. The truth is, we dodge a bullet. You should be thankful for the government action. The bailouts didn't start with Obama. Bush was scared shitless ..."

First, it doesn't take much to scare a politician. As such, that is evidence of nothing.
Second, it was not a complete collapse and it was no where near being one. As it is, this calamity pales in comparison the the 1987 collapse which wiped out thousands of banks, none of which were bailed out. Compared to this disaster which has taken down 77 this year and about as many last year, out of a list of 8,430 FDIC-insured commercial banks in the United States, with many thousands more uninsured, and the effect seems to be minimal both historically and in terms of scale.

This was not and could not have been a disaster, because FDR does not occupy the white house. What George Bush did in response to it was not even a disaster, just expensive and unnecessary. If you want to see a real banking disaster, imagine if this recession drug on for an entire decade like it did under Hoover and FDR. It is quite telling that the vast majority of the banks that went under did so three plus years after the depression began.

9/24/2009 5:18:05 PM

It's tough to rate a depression that didn't happen, but I think you are deluded. This was not just a Savings and Loan scandal. The biggest financial and industrial institutions in the world - from B of A, to GM and AIG - were going down. It might be ideologially "right" that they should be allowed to fail, but it would have been a nightmare - but since it didn't happen everyone can cling to their values (without them having to be tested, thank God).

9/24/2009 5:32:05 PM

Quote :

"As it is, this calamity pales in comparison the the 1987 collapse which wiped out thousands of banks, none of which were bailed out. Compared to this disaster which has taken down 77 this year and about as many last year, out of a list of 8,430 FDIC-insured commercial banks in the United States, with many thousands more uninsured, and the effect seems to be minimal both historically and in terms of scale."

You do realize if the Fed wouldn't have bailed out C, BOA, AIG, and various other TARP recipients, the dollar value and in %gdp of the banks failures do to this crisis would have made 1987 look like a bump in the road.

Quote :

"s such, allowing everything on wallstreet to collapse would have caused a severe recession, more severe than we have had, but if I understand the general theory nowadays, the recession would end about the same time as this one is going to end, only without $10 trillion in public debt."

Which Heritage or Cato paper did you read that explained this one?

Quote :

"Companies that made bad loans should have gone belly up and there should not have been any bail outs. That is how the private sector should work. You run a business well, you succeed. You run it poorly then you fail. No government safety net."

The problem is, we let companies grow too large to fail. Perhaps the most maddening part of this whole crisis is the drum beat to shrink the size of these giants just isn't happening.

Quote :

" ^I do agree with you to an extent. And for the most part these lenders were pushed to make these riskier loans. Most were quickly sold to our govt through fannie/freddy. Or packaged into investments bc of the rising housing bubble."

It's amazing, with as much text that has been spilled on this website about the housing crisis, the same actors continue to cling to the idea that this whole mess was caused by liberals forcing banks to lend to the poor that couldn't afford it.

Brokers who only needed a borrower to not default for 90 days so they could get paid the full commission of the loan the underwrote got retardedly rich for what little they did. They didn't need anyone in the government to tell them to get rich. All they needed was cheap interest rates and an uptrending housing market and they were set.

Furthermore, it's been shown time and time again, the original banks giving out subprime loans based on the CRA did better than those that came much later...why? Because they still employed prudent lending standards. Stupidity still is bi-partisan, shocking as that may be.

Quote :

"Capitalism working requires 2 things to work well, access to information and a neutral method of dispute resolution."

I just don't think Capitalism in the US is ever going to get to the point where information flows freely and isn't controlled in some way. Just look at the extreme resistance the Fed has to being audited...and folks on this web site that lean right said that would do nothing but politicize the Fed. How can someone be pro-capitalist and anti-information sharing?

9/24/2009 7:45:53 PM

sounds like good ol class warfare to me. keep up the good work, MM

Quote :

"It's amazing, with as much text that has been spilled on this website about the housing crisis, the same actors continue to cling to the idea that this whole mess was caused by liberals forcing banks to lend to the poor that couldn't afford it."

It's also amazing that people like you refuse to believe that said actions could have any responsibility whatsoever for the current situation.

9/24/2009 10:00:59 PM

Quote :

"The problem is, we let companies grow too large to fail. Perhaps the most maddening part of this whole crisis is the drum beat to shrink the size of these giants just isn't happening. "

Because we bailed them out. You shrink their size by letting them fail. They go into bankruptcy, the failing parts get chopped up ad sold off, the profitable parts get repackaged and either sold off or formed into a smaller leaner company. Instead, we bailed them out. Sure they trimmed some jobs and fat at the lower levels, but when the economy recovers, they'll hire them back, be just as big as they were before, and then keep growing, perpetuating their too big to fail status.

9/24/2009 10:06:29 PM