There is assured failure within thought processes over time as much as there is possibility of failure in institutions such in as excessively large banks and with in the processes of some of the minds we admire in the most wise.
The term “too big to fail” (TBTF) is intended to extend a “bit of wisdom” by high powered financiers who would not dare say aloud that the banks are insured against bankruptcy by law enacting processes of lobby stultified Congresses.
By the way, it seems that TBTF already implies the existence of possible failure, an existence of a financial cancer, incurable except by government’s ability to keep the inevitable failure in remission through a propaganda process that works, in this case led by the innocent appearing wise term, “too big to fail.” Could the term be both innocent and wise, perhaps it is merely happenstance cleverness?
The auto bail out seems to have been action by choice. But too big to fail, seems to mean that the government has no choice but to bail out certain institutions as though they were elements fundamental to the socio-economic system?
What is the danger of this? Even empires too great to fail have failed never the less.
Do we see some economic disease, some failure disease forming or is it merely an institutional cold? Is an economy once built on sound capital, then converted into solid gold, later into paper money now being converting into “virtual money” that is visible, if at all felt by hand only by the wisest financiers?
If certain institutions are fundamental to our socio-economic system and their function cannot be entrusted either to private or to public hands, whom should we trust?
Perhaps “too big to fail” goes back to the saying that it is only “in God we trust” and we know that Jesus thought that “moneychangers,” had no business in the temple. Have the moneychangers again rather invisibly arrived within the temple, this time with invisible money in their pockets for exchange?
Do they alone know their function there? Is their function sufficiently important as a social public effort as to require perpetual bail out on standby? Can the strong proponents of the stock exchange really explain its significant social contribution in non-conventional and fundamental terms?
This time it may be important to also include the lobbyist in their ejection along with "virtual money," vagaries, hitches, hedges, and all magic money phrases intended to obscure value, like the sweating of gold of old? Yes. What is there in it, what is the to service to the people and to the temple?