Straying a bit further off topic...most of the owners of the 'bailed out' bank had their entire life savings wiped out (many lost multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions) and are most likely out of a job.
The 15 second CNN sound bite doesn't mention that.

 

lol...what a stray this was....

 

Sounds more like risk assessment issue in the industry....(or poor management within the industry, which is very true).

However, your direct cost is not affected, unless you are the one that hits me and injures me while I am not wearing a seat belt. (i.e. you are at fault)

If I am at fault, or no one is, it falls back on my (and my insurance), the way it is designed.

 

Actually, most poeple did not use thier life's savings - because they had zero or 5% down loans that they had no business taking. A lot of people are just walking away from it...a foreclosures is bad, but not that bad on your credit. The banks/mortagage companies hate when that happens.

For those that go caught up in re-fi fun, and taking all this "equity" out to pay for cars/college/drugs/whatever, and then got caught by rising rates, it's just tough cookies.

 

The stock holders made an informed investment decision, to buy and/or hold that stock. They knew, or should have known, what the company was doing. Especially the employees who were also stock holders, because they were the ones who were doing it. Many of them worked in mortgage processing, where they saw the ludicrous mortgage packages. And, of course, most financial advisers have been telling everyone for decades that we should not invest more than a few percent of our portfolio in any one stock. The people who worked in the investment bank surely had access to financial advice.

The people who decided to gamble took the gamble and lost.

The people who bought that stock knew, or should have known, the risk they were taking. The bankers who bought those bonds knew, or should have known, the risk they were taking. The people who bought houses above their incomes knew, or should have known, the risk they were taking. (Though, because the house-buyers are not professionals, they may have been misled.) Everyone else saw the run-up in house prices that was caused by that speculation, but most decided not to gamble beyond their means.

The challenge now is to protect other people, who did not gamble, from the gamblers and thieves. The gamblers losses must be liquidated in an orderly manner, over a period of time.

 

Yep. Any time I purchase an investment that isn't FDIC insured or a US Government Treasury instrument there are disclaimers all over the place to the tune of:

This is NOT insured and can loose (all) principle.

Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware)

People and companies should be responsible for their risk taking and not go crying to the government to bail them our at my expense.

 

Agreed, just wanted to be clear that the only 'thing' that was bailed out was the banking system as a whole. I imagine most will think that the shareholders got bailed out...they really weren't.

 

A sort of mea culpa. I reverse my position on this. I couldn't stnad the seatbelt ding. Really a pain.

So I had it disabled. Much, much better. The dealer thought it could not be done due to local laws, but that is not correct. The dash light will flash, but that's not big deal.

I still put the belt on when I drive, but the nag is gone.

I also go rid of that annoying beep when locking and unlocking the doors. Again, much, much better (the lights still flash, which is plenty indication, or helpful when finding in a parking lot.)

The fact things can be customized is nice.

 

You wear your seatbelt but can't stand the "ding"???
Hmmmmm.

 

i hate this too. I put my backpack on the passenger seat, with two notebooks and my various tools. about 9lbs total. I've been doing this for at least 4 years now and its a VERY hard habit to break. I need to have the dealer turn off the passenger chime.