Yeah, my understanding is that once bankers have bet more of other people’s pensions and life-savings than they can cover if they lose the bet, they are in line for a bailout.
In effect, the more catastrophic your bet is, the less personal responsibility you have to take for it.
One of the many hypocrisies and perverse incentives of capitalism.
That’s anything but capitalism. Capitalism says if you fail you die. If that takes other people down, so be it. But bailouts were never supposed to be a thing.
Well crud. I hadn’t seen that angle.
Yeah, my understanding is that once bankers have bet more of other people’s pensions and life-savings than they can cover if they lose the bet, they are in line for a bailout.
In effect, the more catastrophic your bet is, the less personal responsibility you have to take for it.
One of the many hypocrisies and perverse incentives of capitalism.
That’s anything but capitalism. Capitalism says if you fail you die. If that takes other people down, so be it. But bailouts were never supposed to be a thing.
Sounds great! Where do I find a capitalism like that?!
“If you owe the bank $100, that’s your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that’s the bank’s problem.”
Needs to add if you owe the bank $1 Billion, then that’s the governments problem.
And seemingly
“If the bank owes $100 billion, thats the taxpayers problem”