I love that you link to a wiki article that basically says "it's a theory" - and that's exactly my point. You can't prove that we would have been fine if the banks had failed because we didn't let it happen. Ask yourself this - what if the theory is wrong?
A lot of what our governments do is based on theories and in this case they obviously decided to step in to protect their citizens. Just the same way, you cannot prove the opposite.
De facto you can decide to trust the government you were voting for or against - and me being from Euroland, I rather trust that they don't fuck up too big for important decisions like that. I know this is different in the USA.
But, the point isn't so much whether it was all right or wrong, the more important (and frustrating) point is that WHAT they did wasn't done very diligently because at the end of the day, bailout billions were passed out practically for free and nothing changed.
The question whether it was right or wrong to intervene is more a philosophical question and how much it has compromised the very foundations of our value system and economy: free market and capitalism.
>But, the point isn't so much whether it was all right or wrong, the more important (and frustrating) point is that WHAT they did wasn't done very diligently because at the end of the day, bailout billions were passed out practically for free and nothing changed.
>The question whether it was right or wrong to intervene is more a philosophical question and how much it has compromised the very foundations of our value system and economy: free market and capitalism.
That's all great - and I agree with your points, but the original point was "It wouldn't have destroyed the economy for everyone."
We simply do not know that - maybe, if the bailout hadn't happened, the economy would have plunged into a severe depression.
