Too Big To Fail

Several of the major players described in the book predicted that the economy was overdue for a crisis before 2008. Why were they not able to prevent these events? Is there something they or others could have done to avert the crisis? Why or why not?

Those responsible for the bailout believed that they had to explain their actions “in plain English” so that the average person could understand them. Did they accomplish this goal? Why or why not? 

Throughout much of the book, Lehman Brothers and other key players appear to be focused on preventing bad news from leaking more than they are focused on solving the underlying problems that led to the financial crisis. Is this inevitable, given the way the markets operate? Why or why not?

When Lehman negotiated with a Korean bank as discussed in Chapter 5, its representatives were frustrated that their first meaning “served little purpose other than to make introductions” and that they “could hardly tell to whom they were speaking” (114). Is it possible that this was a result of cultural differences in business negotiations? If so, what does this suggest about the ideal skill set for representatives of global investment banks?

Skip McGee of Lehman said of Fuld, “You’re a wonderful leader, but when the books are written, your Achilles’ heel will be that you have a blind spot for weak people who are sycophants” (119). Does this explain some of Fuld’s missteps as described in the book? If so, how?

Peggy Noonan wrote an op-ed in which she pointed out that no one defended capitalism in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and that the crisis was the product of a mixed economy, not pure capitalism run amok, or the free market in “unbridled form,” as Nancy Pelosi characterized it. Is Noonan’s analysis correct? Why or why not?

Many of the early chapters in this book focus on a particular company, and usually a particular executive at that company. An alternative to this organization would have been to present the events chronologically. Why do you think Sorkin chose to organize the early chapters of the book by companies and individuals rather than by date and time of the events? Would something have been lost in a chronological treatment? Is any of the interconnectedness of these events lost in Sorkin’s chosen organization of these parts of the book?

Sorkin makes it a point to include the nicknames of the individuals described in the book, such as “Dr. Strangelove of Derivatives” (157). Why? How does this affect the reading?