Originally Posted by DVTimes

you have a point.

i am not sure what the 1% stands for, but i fail to see why he is included.

150 people is not a huge firm. and if he owns it, its his business (excuse the pun) what he does.

its the banks who were bailed out but still paying huge execative wages and bouses thats the problem. thats not capatilim, thats comuism, in the fact the market force has no bering on what they do as they are protected.

the banks should have been alowed to fail. but the problem was, they all have protection with other banks. they pay a sort of insurance to other banks. the idea being if you make a less, the bank you pay bails you out. however the losses were so huge it would have meant the banks could not afford to cover the costs, so in turn every bank would fail. so it was seen as the only option was to bail them out in both usa and uk.