• butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    I agree that it injected a tremendous amount of moral hazard into banking, but surely you aren’t implying that the working class paid for the bailouts? You know that the federal government made money on the bailouts, right? It literally cost negative money, it’s just that there weren’t consequences for the conmen who all should have been jailed and prohibited from running banks ever again.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      The crisis was created by banks intentionally signing high-risk loans and essentially betting against them being repaid. The bailouts absolved the financial burden from the lenders, and left the borrowers holding the bill.

      The same bailouts were needed in the EU, but several nations absolved the borrowers. The banks still got their money, but without the widespread foreclosures and subsequent property value depreciation ripple.

      • butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        Oh okay, I misunderstood your comment as implying that the working class, though tax revenue, bore the burden of bailing out the banks, rather than saying that the working class paid for it because working class people had their house foreclosed upon.