In America, we tend to buy into the idea that bigger is better. And sometimes it is, like when it comes to national defense.

But how about when it pertains to the components that make up our nation’s economy? Are we better off when our country is powered by a few big economic engines, super companies that can exercise a lot of political leverage? Or are we better off with a multitude of smaller units that create and contribute to a competitive and diverse collective?

America has always had a thing for bigness, particularly in business and finance. “As goes General Motors,” so goes the nation,” caught our fancy when our Dwight Eisenhower was our President.

And up until recent days we were all assured that the Big Three automakers were too big to fail. But they have, even if they survive.

Think big. Big is beautiful. The bigger the better. It doesn’t take much research to put together a bountiful chapbook of advice on the benefits of bigness.

Indeed, if you look at the way our government cowers to bigness, it makes sense to embrace the security of size. Nobody is coming to rescue the little man as our economy swirls down the drain. But act irresponsibly and fail miserably on a grand scale, and Uncle Sam has a plan and a helping hand.

Yet all those folks who swear on the bible of bigness are quick to tell the folks on the other end of the spectrum that they should be prudent with their own finances. Like, don’t put all your eggs and one basket, and diversify, and seek moderation in all things.

If that makes sense at the poor end of the spectrum, than why not at the rich end?

When Texarkana native H. Ross Perot talks about the glory days of his wealth building, he describes his competition as a lumbering battleship. To gain the advantage, he built a business model that was fast, fluid and could shift directions quickly. He said the most difficult thing to do is turn around a battleship. He is right.

The American business model relies on a bunch of battleships. When they are in trouble it is difficult to turn them around. And many of them are new and untested or old and lumbering.

Detroit is the latter.

Other car companies have been able to navigate these economic currents successfully. If Detroit falters, somebody will fill in the void and build cars profitably that people want. The market for cars is not going away. Indeed, the international demand will soon outpace domestic demand in emerging markets. If these guys can’t figure it out, someone else will.

No one will deny that there are a multitude of advantages that big can provide. But when a giant falls, the crater usually extends beyond the immediate area and fallout can take a resounding toll.

Over the years banking has evolved from a local/regional model where bankers had first hand knowledge of their customers, to impersonal number crunchers and risk assessors who evaluate us with binoculars from distant ivory towers and project the probability of profitability while they bundle our mortgages and ship them off to an even more distant financial conspirators.

Are we not better off with 100 banks acting locally and independently than to rely on a single cash-flush monolith. We’ve watched over the years as big banks have gobbled up little banks, as national banks have gobbled up regional banks, have gobbled up local banks. The world bank must surely be next in line.

But with 100 instead of one, if a few of them fail, they fail. But the rest will go on, probably because they acted responsibly.

We’ve seen the same thing happen in the retail sector, where national stores have pushed out the corner drug store and the mom and pop stores, and left most retail sectors in most towns looking pretty much alike.

It’s why the grand opening of Lifetree’s new showroom in Texarkana this weekend was such a rarity. A locally owned and operated store that goes back three decades is something of an anomaly. We have a few left in this town, but not many.

Big fish keep eating little fish.

But are we better for it?

Big in most things is mostly impersonal and unsatisfying and in other ways threatening. The meltdown of bigs in the financial sector is a threat to our national security. When our economy is on the skids we are at a higher risk.

Everyone’s financial health should not be tied to so few—particularly when they seem inclined to gamble with it. Bailing these companies out enables them to continue acting irresponsibly. It sends the wrong message.

This is America, and it is difficult to cap the size of a business. Part of the American Dream is that anything is possible, including impossible wealth. Nobody wants to be the one to demand a reality check, but it is time to develop a more prudent approach.

Sometimes enough is enough, and sometimes too big is too big.

We need to tell our elected officials to stop bailing people out and let free market economics run free again.

Part of life is learning to pay for mistakes. It’s time for a little tough love.