Or so says Willem Buiter, a former Bank of England Policy Maker. (We're not talking Hugo Chavez here)
http://www.bloomberg.com/...
Still, some economists said, the Fed may encourage risky behavior by backstopping financial institutions. Willem Buiter, a London School of Economics professor and former Bank of England policy maker, called the Fed's move ``socialism for the rich, which is both inefficient and morally objectionable.''
The recent bailout (and yes, bailout - that is how the Nightly Business Report called it) is just another example of capital extraction from the tax payer. I ain't no bondad, but as far as I can tell here is how the game goes.
Guy X puts all his money on red 23.
Black 12 comes up.
Wait, we can't afford for Guy X to go bankrupt! So let's all chip in to help a man out who is down on his luck.
Can someone answer this question for me? Why is risk only transferred from company to company to company and, then finally, the taxpayer? Can't we force risk exposure on the INDIVIDUALS that performed these transactions?
If Alan Schwartz from Bear Stearns wants socialism to save his company, it seems to me only justified to seize his personal property to ensure the Great Leap Forward - right? (/mild sarcasm).