Ordinary bank customers have their deposits insured by a guarantee scheme, currently covering up to 100k per person. The Irish government could have nationalised just the retail banking parts of the system and let the bond-holders get hit. Life could have carried on for most people without any effect, and it would only have been institutional investors who would've been hit. And hit for making bad investment decisions by putting their money in high risk Irish banks.As I said previously, the banks were due to default on their debts to the European Central Bank in September, 2008, and Brian Lenehan and the politicians rushed in to save them defaulting (they had to, or we would lose our savings and the cash machines will have no money) and made the Irish taxpayer pay to the tune of 70 billions (and with interest etc over 100 billion) for their financial over- stretching.
Why did they save the banks to the cost of the Irish taxpayer (leave out the part where they had to) and it is a different scenario with ordinary people/farmers who get into trouble - who bails them out?
Is there really a difference to both situations.
These people who were evicted have a very long track record of "getting into trouble" - whether through ignorance or malice. Why should they be bailed out? And at the expense of Belgian KBC bank who had no involvement in the Irish banking collapse or guarantee fiasco in 2008?