> The[sic] got equity and loans for the bailout, and made a lot of profit in the end
Your running to defend the bailout in this way reveals your bias.
The “they” in your defense is the government, who issued the loans, but the money was yours and mine. That is, they were public funds, but we, the public, failed to get anything tangibly out of this “profit”.
Quite the opposite, really.
The public took a great deal of the brunt of the failure of the economic tools these banks dreamed up in the form of foreclosures, wherein members of the public completely lost the only financial asset many possess.
I am unsure if you are clever enough to know one is unable to prove a negative and so avoided asking the OP to prove that the profits failed to reach the public, or if you are brain dead enough to think asking someone to prove your own point is a valid debate technique.
The OP made it clear that one way the profits failed to reach the public is clear in how so many lost their homes due to foreclosure.
So, whether you can 'prove' that the profits did reach the public it seems obvious that one way they failed to reach the public was in protecting the public from these bad financial contracts.
One cannot just look at the end result. It is also of relevance what risk was run. Nobody else was willing to lend those bank some more money. Guess why. If can play russian roulette and win 100000 dollars if you survive and it turns out that you survive and get 100000 dollars can we conclude from this that it was a wise decision?
