Too big to fail, or too big to succeed?

The news and discussion of financial problems in several sectors of our economy has been enlightening in many ways. An oft-repeated theme is that government help is needed for troubled entities because they are just "too big" to let them fail.

First, if it is dangerous for the economy to have big concerns fail, then why does the government continue to allow the endless mergers of companies that lead to the creation of even bigger firms?

Second, that problems can arise from a consolidation of business entities is not a new concept. Does anyone remember the conglomerate merger movement of the '60s and '70s? Scores of companies were aggregated under one corporate umbrella to create giants like ITT, Litton Industries, Textron, LTV, etc. When other purported virtues became illusory, the conglomerates were busted up. In our capitalistic system, businesses rise and businesses fail; then new and more innovative companies arise - and the economy moves ahead.

Finally, the comical interactions between the auto executives and the committee members in the U.S. House and Senate underscored for me that our problem is not a matter of organizations being too big to fail but, instead, one of being "too big to succeed." We saw people running the big, lumbering, dysfunctional auto companies trying to explain their failures to members of the Congress - who told the auto executives how to better-manage their enterprises. The comedy in this stems from the fact that Congress is the worst management team in the history of earth.

The humor ends with the realization that those of us who pay taxes and do not run around in corporate jets will get the bills for all of the mismanagement. Inefficient organizations should be allowed to die. They should not have their lives prolonged by our bailout tax money. Now if this could only hold true for Congress as well?

Charles F. Falk

Schaumburg