Quote

I do not want to put U.S. companies in a position where their competitors are behaving in a way that is inconsistent with the way they are required to behave. That is neither fair, nor will it solve the problem.

I'm probably a believer in abandoning too-big-to-fail firms or breaking them up in some way so that the system can try to take care of itself. I imagine you're not going to get there, and therefore, I suspect regulation is what's going to be required.

If we want corporations to act differently, we have to force them to do so through laws that are fully enforced and through penalties higher than the economic benefits of thwarting the laws.

If a financial institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist.

If you or I fail at business, we fail. If we cheat and fail, we go to jail. But if you're rich and politically connected, your incompetence may be protected by a government bailout.

I tell them the rules are made by the government. Every firm should comply. It doesn't mean they can't compete.

In the business world, we can point to instances when a lack of integrity has bankrupted entire companies - in sectors as different as finance, telecommunications, manufacturing, and energy.

What America does best is produce the ability to accept failure.

Big businesses aren't the only ones in the economic ecosystem. Nobody should fall behind because of an unfair structure.

I don't think any business has to give up legal protections in order to simplify. The main consideration is that whatever protection, rights and remedies a corporation wants, they should be put in terms that are understandable to the consumer.