Bank Bailouts Debate

I think they are not completely blameless. Companies deposited money in a riskier-bank because they got more favorable terms/perks/... compared to other options. Now they don't have to bear the results of that risk because the Govt has stepped in.Similar to the current US discussion around Student Loan repayment. Bailing students out of loans disadvantages everyone else who did not take those loans, or who paid them off already, because they had the foresight to choose a less-r

Yes but they got screwed by incompetence at their bank. Why should the tax payer get screwed instead?

yes, the resolution would entail that. its not about screwing people, its about fixing something thats broken. Isn't that what happened in 2008? Banks made stupid decisions, and government bailed them out for it. Obviously more complicated and probably higher stakes, but the crisis essentially boils down to that. Don't see why it can't happen here.

Taxpayers are not paying for this, banks collectively are.

As opposed to the banks that lent them the money... sounds like a shift of blame to me.

It's funny that the very same people that caused a run on the bank are likely lobbying the government to make the companies they invested in whole.

It's possible that they have already reaped the profits and are now saddling the banks with debt, leaving the burden on the people.

Smart people. Why should they pay for private company (bank) failure? Learn US & UK, ask people before geting their money first.

It'll be fine. When the banks burst in 2008, they were gifted 7 trillion to make up the shortfall and life went on for the rich.This time they'll be gifted 70 trillion to make up for the shortfall, and life shall continue on for the rich.It's win-win for them, there's no risk at all

It means that the bank was gambling, lost, and wants to externalize those losses onto the rest of us who weren't gambling.