[hangphyr]

From what I've observed in the US, both major political parties are advocates of socializing the downside. The current Canadian federal government, though very left-leaning, is also a strong advocate of this policy.

I think often people frame this issue incorrectly. As much as I have my own opinions of what 'isms' or parties are superior, we should be discussing the incentives we've built into our political systems that encourage politicians of all stripes to make decisions like this. Politicians avoid a very visible event with high damage to a single entity (major bank or airline going bankrupt), compared to difficult to trace moderate damage spread across everyone over a long period of time. It's very low cost to the politicians to impose a bail-out, they don't face the long-term slow moving economic and social damage.

I feel confident large businesses would behave far more sensibly with a long-term vision if they knew there wasn't a taxpayer below them ready to catch them when they fail performing financial stunts.

[newen]

You need to consider who politicians are being funded by. Corporations and the wealthy people that own these corporations currently have a strong hold on politicians on both parties and you need to consider that in your analysis as well.