Tämmöinenkin osui silmään (The end of American capitalism as we knew it).

If financial behemoths like AIG are too large and/or too interconnected to fail but not too smart to get themselves into situations where they need to be bailed out, then what is the case for letting private firms engage in such kinds of activities in the first place?

Is the reality of the modern, transactions-oriented model of financial capitalism indeed that large private firms make enormous private profits when the going is good and get bailed out and taken into temporary public ownership when the going gets bad, with the tax payer taking the risk and the losses?

If so, then why not keep these activities in permanent public ownership?There is a long-standing argument that there is no real case for private ownership of deposit-taking banking institutions, because these cannot exist safely without a deposit guarantee and/or lender of last resort facilities, that are ultimately underwritten by the taxpayer.

Ehkä ne isot pankit ja vakuutuslaitokset olisi kannattanut pitää valtion omistuksessa alunperinkin? Olisi säästetty antamasta kasalle huippujohtajia (esim. Lehman Brossin "huippu"toimitusjohtajalla 17000 euroa tunnissa siitä että ajoi 158-vuotiaan firmansa konkurssiin) täysin tähtitieteellisiä työehtoja heidän pelatessaan pokeria veronmaksajien rahoilla.