Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

If the big three automakers and the big banks

were not MONOPOLIES, could this economic crisis have been prevented? If companies were not allowed to become so big and we had smaller banks and car companies, would this have saved the economy from melt down?

Answer Question
 
Anonymous

Asked by Anonymous at 7:29 PM on Apr. 26, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Answers (10)
  • That's a good point. If it was just a few smaller companies going out of business, there would be no need for huge bailouts. We would be able to absorb the hit.
    stacymomof2

    Answer by stacymomof2 at 7:45 PM on Apr. 26, 2009

  • I don't know. I wish I were more educated on this subject..
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:48 PM on Apr. 26, 2009

  • Yes, I was wondering why no one has made the connection. Maybe these companies need to be broken down into smaller independent companies that can manage their assets with more transparency. There are monoploy laws on the books, but some how there must be loop holes in the laws.

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:48 PM on Apr. 26, 2009

  • Should someone define monopoly? I think you mean oligopoly...
    prettylob1

    Answer by prettylob1 at 8:06 PM on Apr. 26, 2009

  • How do you propose keeping companies from growing so large? Does this mean Walmart should be broken up and made smaller. They are actually making money but they are large employ more people than GM does? How do we determine this? I know many want a salary cap on how much people can make so we all are the same this no different. Cuba and many other countries control their business sizes and what people make I suggest going there and seeing for yourself what an idiotic idea controlling this is.

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:54 PM on Apr. 26, 2009

  • Its simple supply and demand. Americans have a love affair with cars, the more people want them, the more they make, and the bigger the business gets. Same with banks and any other business out there.
    rotPferd

    Answer by rotPferd at 10:23 AM on Apr. 27, 2009

  • You can't successfully argue a monopoly of the automakers and banks.

    There are quite a few other automakers out there. They aren't on the verge of bankruptcy. One of the biggest difference between those and the big 3 is the UAW. They have had a choke hold on American car industry for years. Combine that with the huge legacy costs the companies have and presto...disaster.

    There are tons of banks! Heck we do business with 3 smaller banks that are having ZERO difficulties. Our banks aren't in the credit card industry for one thing and they have been more frugal with their lending. Both of which means they have don't have the problems of the bailout banks.

    If the government puts limits on the success of a business our country will eventually collapse. If you limit success there will be no reason to strive for it.
    yourspecialkid

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 11:08 AM on Apr. 27, 2009

  • Should someone define monopoly? I think you mean oligopoly...

    Semantics. Both words are pretty much interchangable.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 4:25 PM on Apr. 27, 2009

  • If the government puts limits on the success of a business our country will eventually collapse. If you limit success there will be no reason to strive for it.

    There are already monoploy laws on the books. They are just not being adhered to. This is not about capping the sucess of companies, quite the opposite. It is about allowing competion.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 4:27 PM on Apr. 27, 2009

  • "Semantics. Both words are pretty much interchangable."

    No. They are not. This is not an issue with connotation, but denotation.
    prettylob1

    Answer by prettylob1 at 5:47 PM on Apr. 27, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.