Most could make the payments. Of course, now lots of people can't make payments because they've lost jobs, which is the real problem. The banking crisis wouldn't have happened if people (not large corporations) were making money. The irony is of course that if people were making money, so would corporations!

We'll get out of this mess when the MBAs finally learn what Henry Ford knew a century ago: pay the workers well and everyone benefits. Cut their wages (those darned union workers!) and everyone suffers.

So why should anyone bid folding money for such baneful creatures? You probably couldn't give them away with a tank of petrol now. Lady MacBeth is a toxic asset all right.

Er.... NovaScotian was saying that the conservatives were cheering three years ago for the countries that have melted down completely now, like Iceland. I don't think excessive regulation was the problem there, nor have I heard of any conservatives lately who go round trashing countries for insufficient regulation, as you suggest.

If the conservatives were cheering the countries that were getting rich on funny money, this might imply that they were trashing the countries that were banking prudently, with good regulation. It would be interesting to know if that was the case. If so, for the rest of the century, whatever such soi-disant conservatives say we should do, let us go and do the opposite.

Confucius he say, "Good housewife not get fulsome editorials from spiders."

@Woodsman
My fingers/mind got tangled up there for a minute from lack of sleep. Yes, I meant praising those without enough regulation to prevent corruption and condemning those with strong reserve requirements that restrict the expansion of the money banks can create. :o

Leverage is a two way street.