Reading a fair bit about this on-line, I keep wondering if the average Democrat and Republican are really so far off on a consensus. (Note I mean citizens here, not politicians.)
Let the banks fail. Let the shareholders and bond holders lose their money. Market capitalism embraces the concept of companies failing and investors losing their money. I don't think John Q. Public has a problem with fat cats losing money. (But maybe not their pension plan?)
FDIC covers the bank account holders. Let healthy companies come in and buy out the bank business. It seems like instead, all the plans involve kilotons of money being thrown to the people who cause these problems.
Now, is this not being considered because its a systemic risk to the banking system, the only argument I could understand for doing TARP 1? But, since TARP 1 did not save the system, why will more do so?
Plus, if the process was orderly and expected, it would bring some CERTAINTY to the economy. Instead, the bankers, quite rightly, figure they will get life support and other goodies if they wait long enough. Everyone else is just clenching their financial buttocks.
I think this has little to do with the economics or systemic risk, but all to do with politicians not wanting to rip the band-aid off. I am especially puzzled at the fear of making bond-holders lose money. What is up with that?