> I am interested to hear how you reconcile those two points of views, society needs fewer "fools", but yet the financial collapse is a case study in foolish ex

> I am interested to hear how you reconcile those two points of views, society needs fewer "fools", but yet the financial collapse is a case study in foolish exuberance. Actually, it wasn't. However, even if it was, there are benefits to a functioning financial system. There's no benefit to more fools. > In my view, the repercussions of the foolish actions on the part of the financial industry where not allowed to happen, even if it would have been painful for us That's a reasonable view, one that I happen to share. (However, you're ignoring the role of govt in this whole thing. I think that folks who want a foolish govt should take a hit.) However, as I've pointed out, there's a reasonable counter argument. What is the benefit to protecting fools? > Which is what many in the financial industry used to justify their behavior. I think that you're making that up. How about a checkable cite to someone in the financial industry actually making that argument? (Someone else saying it about them is not evidence.)