Look asshole, I'm sure I could best you in an IQ test, so calling me stupid is just...........well stupid. I read the article and found it was full of excuses why the market failed, but no-one was taking any responsibility, like, oh well, shit happens. Why aren't those execs. paying with their jobs. They ran those corporations into the ground, or at least didn't see the failures happening. They should clean house. Let me ask you a simple question, say you had a few hundred shares of one of these failed financial entities, you lost thousands. Wouldn't you fire the Boss if you could? I'll guarantee you if a lowly employee lost a thousand bucks of company money, he'd be fired on the spot.
Med, or did we agree that I could call you Asshole?
Anyway, the problem with your view is that it ignores the fact that the majority of the corruption occurs in the giant corporations that government spends all its time protecting, coddling, and accepting bribes, and kickbacks from (on top of the vast amounts they extort and steal.)
The largest institution on the face of the Earth, with the most corruption is ...
The Federal and State Governments, which are monopolies. There is no room for competition, because those entities would quickly use their monopoly on "legal" force to stamp it out.
Then there's the fact that the vast majority of the funds that have been spent on the bail outs have gone to political organizations, CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers (temporary federal loans to a subsidiary), Merrill Lynch. All of those "major" "financial" institutions have one thing in common, they donate a lot to Democrats.
With the Democrat control of Congress, and a president that has no belief in the free market system (as proven by his support of the bail outs) it is clear that the firms that benefitted the most were the ones that paid the most, either to Democrats or Republicans.
Of course, you're solution is to punish the corporations, as opposed to the government, which seems like punishing Drug Users instead of Drug Pushers. If an entity makes a product/service available, then why should the people using that product/service be punished. Isn't it logical to go after the provider?
Of course, such logic clearly escapes you, or perhaps you do not recognize the hypocrisy of your stated views...
The solution isn't to cut the users of government influence because more corporations will come up to take advantage of it. The solution is to reduce government in size so it is not able to act in a partial manner towards corporations that contribute to political campaigns.
Of course, that also goes directly against your views that government should act like a father/mother/wife/husband to everyone, and provide them with things that they are not capable of providing for themselves.
Thus, you have a conflict of ideology, because big government breeds big corruption. If you move to cut down government, you're likely to have to reduce spending on all those idiotic hand outs government makes. But if you fail to cut down government, then you have to accept the fact that it is going to be corrupt.
There is no one, or the other, you can not have big government and no corruption (with out millions of lines of legal code that are easily subject to being manipulated to create new loopholes for political sycophants), nor can you have small government and your hand outs.
You can either have big government with the corruption it brings, and the hand outs, or you can have small government, with out the corruption of big government, and no hand outs.
