So who was really bailed out? Was it the average joe, who was, in spite of the crisis, still able to go to the ATM machine and pull his cash out of the bank, or was it really just a bailout for those heavily invested in the stocks/bonds of the banks?MediumTex wrote: Why would it necessarily involve a "collapse"?
The problem we have isn't collapse, it's the political considerations involved in wiping out certain classes of shareholders and bondholders in many large institutions.
If it's the former, than liquidation would have been painful, but probably would have reminded us that you need to actually do a little research before choosing a bank (ie, bad banks would fail good ones would succeed).
If it's the later, then the bailout was/is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich...
...if that makes sense.