In capitalism, failure is not a dirty word

Private companies make enormous profits and justify it saying they are taking the risk, they should reap the benefits when things work out. But are they really taking any "risk"? The fact is some of the companies are just "too big" to be allowed to fail. If that's the case, then they should be split up like monopolies are split up. Monopolies are "too big" to allow for competition and they can legally be split up.

Likewise companies that get so large that their failure would hurt too many people must be split up somehow. If that can't be done, then we need to be willing to allow these large companies to actually fail. If a company gets too large that we are unwilling to let it fail, then there is no longer any "risk" for that company and therefore there is no justification of private ownership and huge profits. If the government/people guarantee the company, then the govt/people should reap the benefits/profits.

But I don't like government/public ownership of private companies. I prefer limiting company size (as we already do in some cases of media ownership, monoplies, utilities, etc) rather than some kind of public ownership.

OpenMarket.org » Archive » Lehman bankruptcy: In capitalism, failure is not a dirty word