The people who caused this crisis rightfully deserve scorn and consequences. That does not imply that the people who worked around them automatically do, even if they happen to be rich. Being rich is no kind of a crime. As long as you got your money legally, all's fair.

Don't like that? Change (and simplify!) the laws-- and live with the fact that some people will get paid for bending them as far as they can, without breaking them.

I also disagree with the guy giving his bonus away to charity. That smacks of an admission of guilt. If it were me, I'd brazenly fight for the bonus in the media and the courts. He (apparently) didn't cause any part of the problem, and shouldn't in any way be punished ex post facto.

Let's not act like Republicans, please?

fail, catastrophically collapse, contain toxic, chemicals, etc..

I'd be pretty happy to pay the extra 3c. But then, I end up paying $10 for a pack of six, so what do I know? ;]

It would have been Madeira.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeira_wine#Early_American_history

/Food history nazi hat now removed.

I can only hope this guy is perceived as Serious, because he's singing the only song I can imagine fixing these problems: putting a size cap on financial institutions. I just wish the same logic would be applied to *all* companies, and while we're at it, multinationals broken up into national entities (which then trade with one another like everyone else).

One thing that is often overlooked in commentary (that I've read, anyway) is the leverage effect of time that the financial system has on ordinary business when it (the financial system) is distressed. The reasoning goes like this:

1 month into a crisis:

No big deal, some ordinary companies that were tottering already file for bankruptcy due to inability to get easy credit, but that's it.

3 months in:

More companies are forced into crisis mode by the lack of availability of commercial paper. They owe money they need to roll over, and can't. So, obligations they didn't expect to have to meet come due, and this either kills them or kills their earnings (and hence their reinvestment of now-nonexistent profits). The overall economy significantly slows.

6 months in:

Lots of companies are affected, even ones that don't finance, like mine. (Not telling, nah nah). This is because the people that buy whatever they're selling aren't buying any more. Even more companies go away due to the lack of credit.

Now, suppose the crisis is magically solved at month 1. I'd guess the economy pretty much goes back to normal right away. Some carrion feeders make their bucks off the early failures, that's it. Say 1-3 more months to recovery.

Month 3? Takes a while for things to recover, while laid-off people find new jobs and companies cautiously grow their way into the vacuums left by the fallen. Say 6 months-1 year.

Month 6: Wow, things are really getting hosed. This is what happened during the Depression, IMO. So much corporate infrastructure/ecosystem had been wrecked that the fire became self-sustaining. 2 years to recover? 4?

--So, I dispute the claim that "another month is no big deal". It could end up being a very big deal indeed, and we won't know until afterward. Is it really so much to ask that we err on the side of caution and over-react?

I just go over to CNN and browse the stories. It's that simple. I don't need to expose myself to the hurricane of madness that swirls around the full-on nutball sites to take the opposition's talking points in hand.

People would be a lot more polite, there would be a lot less crime, and there sure as hell wouldn't be any risk of people running planes into buildings if every citizen was presumed to be armed at all times.

I know, everyone else on Salon would prefer only the criminals and our masters possess weapons. I wish that weren't so; it's possible to be liberal and still be unwilling to surrender all personal sovereignty to the State. I also wish we had more than two legitimate political parties. Six or ten would be better.

A friend of mine recently accused me of being a libertarian over my position on this issue. I said "Really? Libertarians believe in soup kitchens and free public housing?"

There is no need for a study. People are more polite IRL than they are on the Internet, as is widely known, because they feel more secure from any retaliation on the internet. Apply the same logic to armed vs unarmed people confronting one another IRL.

I believe courtesy evolved as a way of mitigating threat and avoiding confrontation. As we make confrontation less and less expensive, we naturally lessen the value of courtesy.