What happened to my “unalienable rights”?!?!

After reading and discussing American Oligarchy by Johnson and Kwak, I too agree that our financial system under our current practices is not solid. After going through a deep crisis and having to bailout several large banks our flawed financial system could use a makeover because it is susceptible large mishaps. Although there are a handful of banks in our financial sector that exert major influence over our economy which has currently affected us badly, how can the solution of breaking them into smaller banks be feasible without violating its owners unalienable rights? Requiring the government to step in and redirect operations deprives the owners of their liberty to do as they please. Afterall, they designed their business from their likings and customized it in a way that would make it most able to succeed in any endeavor it decides to partake in our economy, which would make its owner happy. This being the case, is it okay for the government to just step in and strategically break down what someone has worked so hard at building up? Furthermore, how can you stop a business from growing in status, profits and power if people keep casting their dollar votes? The only way to prevent a company from growing large would be to hinder its profit making ability, which really is not a viable option since every business has the right to be a profit maximizer. I believe that once banks get to a certain status, they should be held to a higher standard of accountability through regulations and having to report its statements more often since they do have the potential to bring down the entire economy. With great power comes great responsibility so I believe that having to be more up to date with information would be more reasonable.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to What happened to my “unalienable rights”?!?!

  1. tesoman says:

    You’re blog is interesting and I would only have one thing to say in response. Consider that many of these large financial institutions (if not all of them) are public companies would this means that the company is technically owned by the stockholders? When the companies are indulging in their scrupulous business schemes their stockholders might be happy that they are making more money through dividends but as soon as the company goes down and begins to fall into turmoil, the biggest losers are the stockholders.
    Since a company’s stock price is determined by its investment potential and not how much it makes, a company might be paying huge bonuses to its executives but not giving any kind of significant dividends to the stockholders if the stock prices and returned earnings are low. So by breaking up these companies and limiting their power, governments will not only have a chance to actually exercise financial policies but stockholders will also be better positioned to demand adequate dividend returns during company prosperity.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s