Lehman Brothers bankrupt, Merrill Lynch buyout

[robbieduncan]

Let those that aren't guilty appeal to gain an exclusion, but the burden of proof should be with the bank.

Ooh, guilty until proven innocent? That's almost as bad as the legislation around speeding in the UK

I think blaming the banks alone is unfair (and not just because I work for one). The unending greed and demand for immediate gratification regardless of debt levels coupled to a sense of entitlement to ridiculous levels of possessions and property that is endemic in our society has a lot to do with this. We are all guilty to some level.

 

[andiwm2003]

Really? Surely they will have to pay their mortgage or it will be repossessed. Or are you talking about a scheme like the UK one (proposed or actually in place, I can't remember) where people struggling to pay their mortgage would get it paid by the government? In that case the effectively lose their house as the government takes ownership of a large %.

i don't have any detailed knowledge but i can't imagine that a US government bails out the bank and then reposseses 2 million houses. And what would they do with the houses anyway.

I guess there will be very generous refinancing options at artificially low interest rates. Or they reduce the mortgage by 50% or something like that. In the end the tax payer will pay.

What pisses me off is that lots of people took equity out of their houses after 2000. That means they had paid off part of their mortgage and owned 50% of their 500 000 dollar house. Then they took another 100 000 dollar loan on their house with non fixed interest rates and bought an expensive car and went on vacation. Now they are in trouble and they will get bailed out in some way while inflation and taxes will go up for all.

 

[P-Worm]

The whole thing is pretty maddening, but I don't know what the best solution is. What's more important, saving the economy, or being fair? Because the way I see it, we can't have both.

P-Worm

 

[Scepticalscribe]

The whole thing is pretty maddening, but I don't know what the best solution is. What's more important, saving the economy, or being fair? Because the way I see it, we can't have both.

P-Worm

Whyever not? Without a sense of equity, or fairness, there is no sane reason to ask the public to suffer the cost of the spectacular greed and catastrophic judgement of the markets. Any Government that fails to factor in fairness, along with securing the masics of he economy will surely be annihilated at the polls. At the end of the day, in a democracy, the Governmet is meant to be answerable to the "people", not simply those who run (and profit from) the markets.
Cheers