The reason we are discussing this policy is because Trump was elected as the antithesis of the rich and powerful elite. Which is obviously ridiculous but that's another issue. The masses who voted for him are responsible for this policy.
And simply letting the financial system crash would've hurt the poor and vulnerable the most. Just as I personally saw in the UK when Northern Rock went under. It was pensioners and the poor left confused and panicked who were lining up at branches not the big, fat bankers.
>And simply letting the financial system crash would've hurt the poor and vulnerable the most. Just as I personally saw in the UK when Northern Rock went under. It was pensioners and the poor left confused and panicked who were lining up at branches not the big, fat bankers.
Those people actually got their money back whereas the "big, fat" shareholders sued for compensation in court and lost. I'd rather queue.
Letting the financial system crash and deleveraging in a disorderly manner wouldn't have been the ideal way of dealing with the crisis but it would have yielded a better outcome than the bailouts which simply provided lavish subsidies for the financial sector.
I'd say it's easy enough to look at Iceland to see how they handled the financial fallout. They imprisoned the bankers and bailed out their citizens. They have a booming economy now and no wealth inequality.
The reason we are discussing this policy is because Trump was elected as the antithesis of the rich and powerful elite. Which is obviously ridiculous but that's another issue. The masses who voted for him are responsible for this policy.
And simply letting the financial system crash would've hurt the poor and vulnerable the most. Just as I personally saw in the UK when Northern Rock went under. It was pensioners and the poor left confused and panicked who were lining up at branches not the big, fat bankers.