I agree with the logic of Dylan Ratigan's post on Carl Icahn's blog. He certainly has a sharp mind and knowledge of his field of choice. As a poster mentioned, many business media hosts do not have Ratigan's insight. He's got talent. However, I would disagree that every answer is market-driven. Limiting a company's size is a good idea. I'd like to also see limits to trading volumes, in an effort to reduce market manipulation and level the playing field for individual investors.
In Ratigan's theory, the short sellers should have corrected the situation long ago. Steve Eisman and others were very aware of this situations years ago. I know government regulation meets a great deal of resistance, but I don't see any way around it.
My post here refers to an article and people who knew what was happening long ago. In fact, many people got rich off of this credit disaster. When that much money changes hands, it is rarely an accident. I like one of Ratigan's earlier solutions, about arrests. Laws were broken and arrests need to be made. I think that will have far more impact than short-selling the firms of corrupt executives. Why would they care? Did Richard Fuld or Erin Callahan lose anything? They all had their golden parachutes at the ready, didn't they?