Geithner Moral Hazard

It all comes back to health care, Johnny.

Not health "insurance",

HEALTH CARE.

http://tinyurl.com/c5eqle

Great article John. I am glad to see one person at ABC has some sense. I hope they will allow you to stay. Will you please do an article on Rangel? He has been cheating on taxes again, and ABC doesn't deem it news worthy.

Amen John!

There is no business or entity to big to fail (expect God and that will never happen).

Part of the market system is self-correction and that comes in the form of inefficient operations closing down. There's enough room for something to take its place.

Maybe it's the "everybody should win" new age way of thinking that there should be no losers, everybody gets a gold star or a ribbon and no one cries. In real life there are winners and losers. Had they been allowed to fail, maybe the economy would be in a different place right now.

My God, someone's actually doing some critical thinking/journalism at ABC! I wish you well Mr. Stossel, once your bosses at Disney find out, you're probably toast.

Nice job as always!

@Wake_Up,
Sorry, but the link you reference doesn't lead to the conclusion you wish to draw. The problem Mr. Stossel was addressing the issue of banking, risk and what bail-outs entail in terms of "moral hazard", which really has nothing to do with health care.
With regard to health care, the article you point to ignores many things, not least of which is that there are distinct difference in the cultures of the U.S. and Canada that contribute naturally to increased life-expectancy ... and completely omits the fact that colder climates in themselves contribute to longer life-expectancy. Did you know that there is a 4.5 year difference in life-expectancy between Miami and Anchorage? If you want live longer, move to a colder climate!

Your articles on this topic are insightful, accurate and without spin. I am therefore shocked you still have a job with ABC. When they can you for your candor perhaps there is a place for you at a more repuatble news source like Fox.

If a bank (or any entity) is too big to fail, it's just too big! It needs to be broken up then. PERIOD!

Our government is 99% corrupt.

We were told we NEEDED tax-cheat Timmy because he was so smart! Laughable.

Geithner is just a salesman for Bro Barack. He makes up the words to fit the plot as they go along.

At lease the fat traitorous lush from Beantown is out of the picture.

Now, focus on removing Bawney, Nancy and the gang as well.

Geithner's quote epitomizes:

"If you can't dazzle them will brilliance, baffle them with BS."

Great article, John. Always a pleasure to read you on realclearpolitics.com.

The main article by John Stossel is good analysis. The thoughtless riff comment by "che" is personal animus and sheds only heat and no light on this debate. Che if you have something informative to say on policy, go ahead an share it with the class. But just to call people names does not make your case any stonger even if I agree with your point of view.

Most "stupid Americans" (per Bill Maher) understand the idea of moral hazard -- elites don't. Just as they call Americans' rejection of Obamacare "triumph of fear over logic." Bill Buckley put it rather succinctly: "I'd rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the phone directory than by 2000 Harvard faculty."

John, you make way too much sense to be a pundit in Washington. There are articles out there today, talking about Citibank, Bank o America, Well Fargo etc, that have grown much larger since the bailouts. It's time to move back to the local personal banks and credit unions for mortgages and personal loans...http://cooperscopy.blogspot.com/

Bank of America is too big to fail. I'm buying their stock. Can't go wrong. Barack's got my back.

Guilty, Rick. I get the hazard thing, however, they did inherit "Do nuthin' at your own risk".

My point is that common sense
regs (ooh) might avoid the recurring money grab & bail-out to begin with. CAN still is our biggest trading partner, I believe.

Your Miami/Anch claim fascinated me - a quick search deems climate appears irrelevant. Hawaiians live longest & the only blip is the South. AZ, FL, NJ, & NY are identical w CA slightly higher. And, as 90% of CDNs live within 100 miles of our border, it's moot, I'd argue.

Cultural diffs aside, perhaps they're just drooling those 3 extra years, but maybe not. Fact remains, it costs them 50% what we're spending. There's room for improvement.

http://tinyurl.com/errap
http://tinyurl.com/6yubok

This guy deserves a promotion...finally, the shedding to light and a little understanding of what is really going on.

I mean I already know what really is going on...nice to see some msm exhibiting some intelligence.

@Wake_Up,
Teasing out climate related life-expectancy deltas is difficult, and I've only seen a few studies that do it. I'll try to find those studies, but they aren't on the Web ... a bit old for that.

Part of the problem is that you have to pick as near comparable areas as possible, and that often eliminates using state-wide statistics. Another issue is dealing with cultural issues.

Something to bear in mind about Hawaii is that the population demographics are pretty heavily skewed to the Orient. Generalizing based on race is dicey, but in statistically those of Japanese heritage tend to live a healthier life-style, and Hawaii has a very large percentage of people of Japanese extraction.

I don't know how much you've traveled, but there is a marked difference in the climates of southern Canada and states even a little south of there. Having lived north, south and in between, and traveling a great deal in Canada, I can tell you that there is a great deal of difference between Summer in Ontario and in Ohio, and progressively greater as you move increments of just 100 miles south.

I don't think things are so clear here. Just throwing up our hands and letting everything crumble to the ground certainly wouldn't have been a good idea. Markets only work if people are confident in them. If we had let the market sink into the ground we'd be in a far worse situation right now.

Staying "free market, free market, free market" and not doing anything is like saying you rather not take the H1N1 vaccine in the name of purity if you had it.

@Michael,
Bankruptcy law and the FDIC are ways of dealing with the failure of banks without bailing out banks, yet keeping consumers confident that they can safely put their money in banks. Under the existing system, if a bank fails, it SHOULD be declared failed by the appropriate agency, taken over, sold in whole or in part to another, stronger institution, deposits preserved by FDIC funds, the old management out on its ear (or other body part) ... and the consumer unharmed. Bail-outs leave bad management in place, and give those managers who failed reason to believe that risk is not something to be avoided. After all, they'll keep their jobs, stock, etc.
Protecting bad behavior is what creates greater risk and further erodes consumer confidence. Punishing bad behavior while protecting the consumer lets the managers know that they must behave well in order to keep their jobs, and both ensures that consumers feel safe in their savings, and that the management is incented to behave well. So, where is this bad?