wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

I should have clarified my on-air comment on the manageability problem of businesses getting ever bigger and so naturally dealing with ever more complicated problems than becoming unmanageable. That precisely describes what happened with the finance. It appears the fault was the managers, but the real fault was more likely the manageability of the system getting ever bigger and complex.

Assuring that businesses will continually multiply their complexity is essentially the central purpose of regulation, is the catch. Growth is what the financial system is designed to guarantee. To effectively guarantee that businesses will get too big to fail, and also create problems too complex to manage is the net effect, and points to one of the great unresolved problems with growth.

The stress test were fraudulent, they managed to ignore the $2.5 trillion in toxic real estate securities, we can't happy talk out of this mess

Can we please stay clear that, unlike the financial so-called services firms, the money to the auto industry were **loans,** not **given.**

Also, perhaps a mechanism for regulating Wall Street should involve the percent of any company--and its affiliates, subsidiaries, etc., onshore or over=--that is in non-tangible products, i.e., not invested in companies that produce tangible goods.

what is the worst-case sceanrio if these huge insurance companies fail? i understand the banks, but not insurance companies.

Everything Mr. Parsons says is perfectly correct and on point according to our existing economic system.

It may have its flaws but time is proving that its the best one we've got.

what about the "so big they control our government" companies. should we fear those

Yesterday it was reported that if GM survives, it will begin to make cars in China. Why is it worth it to save GM?

What does "fail" mean in a free market-style economy? Bankruptcy isn't a failure, it's just one of Capitalism's organs FUNCTIONING NORMALLY. So is recession.

Don't worry, Mr. Parsons, the world will not lose its need for financial services! Just yours.

Insurance companies are even more deserving of failure than Parsons and his various businesses (TW/AOL and now CIti), if that is possible.

Why? Their entire business model relies on its actuaries. Capitalism's holy men of measuring risk. This is their social role. For example, even if Wall St. doesn't know how to measure the value of derivatives, for example, insurance companies MUST. If an insurance company can't accurately measure risk then they must be IMMEDIATELY shut down for the sake of the economy.

Excellent point, Brenda.

These bankrupt companies are too big to save, all the money borrowed from China can't save them. Washington Mututal was the largest savings Bank and disappeared overnight, who even remebers them? The same with Wachovia.

Yes, I was struck by Parsons' comment as well. It was based on the very dubious assumption that these super-big corporations act in the "national interest." They don't. They are profit-making institutions and they do whatever and go wherever they will make money. While it's clear they don't act in the general interest of society, it appears that their executives abandoned the interest of stockholders lately as well and just acted to line their own individual pockets.

The markets are manipulated by these scoundrels who basically hold the markets hostage for ransom. This is economic leadership?

If this guy is italian his name is pronounced
fran-CHES-ko GWEHR-reh-rah

What would you expect the head of Citicorp to say. C'mon that's insulting to us the listeners. Let the ripples begin, then everyone will get the point.