Too big to fail argument half correct and half wrong

Comments on Stephen Bartholomeusz “Lehman: A symptom, not a cause”, 14/09/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Lehman-A-symptom-not-a-cause-pd20090914-VV9ZV?OpenDocument&src=sph

If Lehman Brothers had been bailed out as opposed to let it collapse, there would have been no impact on any moral hazard issues.

You have to let some to fail to deter firms from being or becoming too reckless.

One question is that why should government have bailed out so many firms rather than letting them fail and nationalise them to let shareholders lose all their money/investments and to remove all those executives, so to avoid and prevent both systematic failures and moral hazard.

While the logic that some firms are too big to fail has some truth, one has to let those firms bear the consequences of their management.

Let those that would fail to do so and use temporary nationalisation to save the system. Rehabilitate any firms if necessary and then sell them so the taxpayers don't have to bear the costs.

This is a correct measure to deal with such difficult issues.