The failure of any firm does not pose a risk to the free and unfettered market system, in fact, quite the contrary. The failure of a firm is a vote by the consumers to avoid using that firm as a agent of consumers to provide goods and services demanded by consumers. It means the consumers have found other firms more efficient in providing goods and services demanded by consumers. The inefficient firm is removed from the marketplace, to be replaced by more efficient firms. Close supervisory oversight means that the government will keep the inefficient firm in business contrary to the votes of the consumers. This is similar to what happens in a reorganization under bankruptcy laws, the inefficient firm which would otherwise be liquidated is kept afloat and frequently at better terms than its competitors since its debts and the servicing of those debts are frozen and thus its capital costs are lowered.

Jeff’s question is asked by many, but I am encouraged by the outcry by so many as never before right now. Never doubt the potential power of every idea of liberty shared…indeed as the many “crises” are further hailed by politicians for further regulation, more people are becoming increasingly hungry for a solution, something new to try, not the same old rhetoric and failed actions of government that got them here to begin with. Though they are often fearful of liberty, reasoning with them of the obvious reality that doing the same thing repeatedly, but expecting a different outcome, is indeed pointless, does seem to gather agreement.

I agree with this summary of your analysis wholeheartedly Sheldon, but my problem is – what to do with it? The one mind at a time educational process seems agonizingly slow compared to the “crisis” driven, mass hysteria creating ideas our politicians are churning out day after day. Have we hit critical mass? Am I displaying incredible naivete for even asking the question?