The resistance was formulated in terms of ‘class warfare’, Wall Street against Main Street: why should we help those responsible (‘Wall Street’) and let ordinary borrowers (on ‘Main Street’) pay the price for it? Is this not a clear case of what economists call ‘moral hazard’?/What left and right share in this case is their contempt for big speculators and corporate managers who profit from risky decisions but are protected from failures by ‘golden parachutes’. / While it is true that we live in a society that demands risky choices, it is one in which the powerful do the choosing, while others do the risking./‘Socialism’ is OK,it seems,when it serves to save capitalism. But what if ‘moral hazard’ is inscribed in the fundamental structure of capitalism? / Hypocritical defence of the rich: if you want people to have money to build, dont give it to them directly, help those who’re lending it to them. / Real dilemma is not ‘state intervention or not?’ but ‘what kind of state intervention?’
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v00/n03/zize01_.html