<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Fall of AIG</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/the-fall-of-aig/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/the-fall-of-aig/</link>
	<description>Macro Perspective on the Capital Markets, Economy, Geopolitics, Technology, and Digital Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:15:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: charlie1939</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/the-fall-of-aig/comment-page-1/#comment-136818</link>
		<dc:creator>charlie1939</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:46:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=14473#comment-136818</guid>
		<description>It seems to me that the issue of how a company becomes &quot;too big to fail&quot; and thus potentially becomes the financial ward of the government (me and you) needs to be addressed. I believe that some provision is needed to keep companies small enough so they CANNOT become &quot;too big to fail&quot; or there needs to be a way to break up those who do become &quot;too big to fail&quot;. How does one evaluate the tipping point of &quot;too big to fail&quot; is then the question that needs to be answered...
This latest financial debacle is proof positive that bigger is NOT necessarily better. The so-called cost efficiencies of bigness need to be balanced by the danger  that a massive case of stupidity or excessive cleverness by a few may result in calamity for the many.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that the issue of how a company becomes &#8220;too big to fail&#8221; and thus potentially becomes the financial ward of the government (me and you) needs to be addressed. I believe that some provision is needed to keep companies small enough so they CANNOT become &#8220;too big to fail&#8221; or there needs to be a way to break up those who do become &#8220;too big to fail&#8221;. How does one evaluate the tipping point of &#8220;too big to fail&#8221; is then the question that needs to be answered&#8230;<br />
This latest financial debacle is proof positive that bigger is NOT necessarily better. The so-called cost efficiencies of bigness need to be balanced by the danger  that a massive case of stupidity or excessive cleverness by a few may result in calamity for the many.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

