However the choice was between a catastrophic financial failure or the bailout. We were always going to suffer the consequences of the banking crisis, it was simply a matter of how long we suffer for, and bailouts seem to be the lesser of two evils.

At least this way the buck stops with our generation. The other choice was the equivalent of saying we don’t care about global warming because it probably won’t affect us, but will affect our kids and our kids’ kids. Not sure we should think that way ;)

And many of us have no idea really what it would mean if banks failed as Harry said, but emotionally we don’t care and find that any support of greed turned sour to be despicable.

Whilst I do support bailouts for homeowners, I also oppose the criticism of the bank bailouts. Unfortunately a bank bailout was essential to ensure the economy might recover sometime within the next decade. 1929 stands as a great example of what happens when banks fail. The US economy still hadn’t recovered 20 years later, although the war certainly didn’t help matters.

(Interestingly, we’re in the midst of a war now too)

As for the professional responsibility of the bankers, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree again. Their professional responsibility was to profit, no more no less. They knew full well who they were lending to, they also knew that more risk brings more reward. It really has more to do with the failure of regulators to control the greed than the greed itself (without which Capitalism fails).

The blame for this doesn’t lie with the bankers. At all. They made profits for their shareholders. That they eventually made losses must be the blame of those who are there to keep them in check, and taxpayers are paying the price for failed regulation.

Whilst we can blame some irresponsible borrowers somewhat, you’re right to point out that they’re the minority. Politicians, however, have no excuses. They knew what was coming and, whether due to lobbying or disinterest, did nothing.