[dirtboy]

One can argue that the bailout was needed to prevent a total economic meltdown. But don’t call it capitalism. And to rip into critics of the Masters of the Universe who completely ignored risk, and in doing such put the financial system in such dire straits as to be on the verge of meltdown, is completely craven.

[jpsb]

"One can argue that the bailout was needed to prevent a total economic meltdown"

Yes one could but I wouldn't. The argument was credit would freeze without the bailouts, well guess what credit froze with the bailouts, so the bailouts did not work as "intended". All the bailouts did was save a few favorite firms. Now if unfreezing credit is the goal why not bailout CIT? CIT provides credit to tens of thousands of small businesses, guess only GS is too big to fail. Someday the corruption of both parties in DC will be revealed and heads will roll (figuratively speaking of course). But it is going to take electing a populist outsider (Sarah Palin anyone?) to do it, since both D's and R's are totally in bed with the likes of GS.

[JasonC]

Pretending that men who made trades in the markets where risk is distributed that were correct enough to earn 10 figures, are "ignoring risk", is simply pretending.

[JasonC]

I'll call it capitalism because it is capitalism. It is how capitalism has worked since before there was such a word, and as long as there was liquid capital of any kind, tradable anywhere. Meanwhile your ugly ideology leads a life of dream abstraction between your ears, just like the pure communism of 19th century ideologues, as opposed to the historical reality. Historical reality not coinciding with your ideas is not an indictment of historical reality. It is simply a lack of realism in your ideas.