Well, yes, because "too big to fail" has never meant "cannot physically happen", it has always meant "cannot be allowed". Or perhaps you would find it more clear as "this institution is <too big to fail> without dire consequences". The phrase is not used to say "there's no way for it to fail because of its size".Frustration wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 6:53 pmNope, still a damned lie. If they were honest they'd say "we choose not to permit this to fail".
I'm sure some have misinterpreted it over the years, just as they did with "social distancing", but there's always going to be some people who struggle with grammar and simple idioms.
This is precisely why people have argued against the notion that "too big to fail" is a valid model for dealing with the banking crises over the years; not because they thought it was laughable or a lie, but precisely because it's true and a very bad strategy in the long term. Allowing a system to become too big to be allowed to fail, without sufficient safeguards to prevent failure, causes massive amount of damage.
No one serious is saying "too big to fail is stupid, because of course it can fail!" in good faith. That's simply not what it means.