Iceland sentences bankers to prison for their part in the 2008 collapse
I&#x27;m not sure I get the hate on bankers. I don&#x27;t like the bailouts - those could&#x27;ve been handled better - but people seem to be angry about the fact that they offered loans that they shouldn&#x27;t have. That is, non-bankers were given money that they shouldn&#x27;t have been given, and the claim is that we should be more selective about offering capital and opportunities to non-bankers and the underprivileged poor.<p>If somebody offered me a billion dollars at a 3% interest rate or whatever it is right now, I would seriously consider accepting it knowing that I don&#x27;t have the capacity to pay them back. There are a lot of things in the world that pay better than 3% interest and that are relatively safe.<p>Similarly, a bank that gave out loans whenever you asked(up to the 10 loan limit, maybe) would be a great opportunity even for people who couldn&#x27;t pay it back out of income. You could buy an empty plot of land and put a small apartment complex on it. You could buy a 4-plex and apply any number of forced appreciation techniques(put in a coin-operated laundry, redo the piping to reduce the amount spent on plumbers, plant some flowers outside to increase the attractivity, etc.). Of course, just betting on general appreciation of single-family homes is bad money.<p>Basically, I was too young to really experience the effects of the 2008 and I&#x27;m feeling envy rather than anger about these people&#x27;s ability to cheaply obtain capital. So I don&#x27;t empathize with these news reports about punishing bankers. Can someone explain why I should feel anger instead?