Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by parineum 8 days ago
> "They" bailed out big banks whose gambling resulted in millions of people losing their homes,

That gambling actually led to people getting those homes. The people losing them was the correction.

> the electoral effect was basically zero.

because...

> it was both the DNC and GOP that bailed out the banks
1 comments
SideburnsOfDoom 8 days ago
> That gambling actually led to people getting those homes. The people losing them was the correction.

Well, yes but there is a distinction between "led to" vs "losing them". The first is indirect, the second is not.

You could expand that as "That gambling by banks offering these risky mortgages to unsuspecting people, actually led to people getting those homes. When the banks who did this did not bear the costs of their actions, and passed them on to their customers, the people losing their homes was the correction."

link
somenameforme 8 days ago
Yes, the issue with too big to fail is that it can equivalently be rephrased as too big to learn. And this just came out: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-07-19/how-wall-...

Sound familiar?

link
SideburnsOfDoom 7 days ago
> the issue with too big to fail is that it can equivalently be rephrased as too big to learn.

it is certainly phrased that way, i.e. "There Is No Alternative (1) to bailing the banks out, we can't just let them fail - all their employees will be jobless tomorrow!".

It's not true though, there are plenty of ways to inflict non-lethal financial penalties on a bank to help them learn better, or take them under governance in whole or in part (2) for orderly disposal.

But it has to be politically feasible. Which is harder when the ordinary voters aren't the ones that have the most influence over outcomes.

1) AKA "TINA", "The true meaning of TINA isn’t “No alternative is possible,” but rather, “Stop trying to think of an alternative.”"

2) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42184373

link