Wow, you really do take things too seriously. It wasn't a challenge, just a query!

Companies operating supposedly with a self-regulating profit maximising role actually operating in a way that not only isn't profit maximising, but will likely lead to the destruction of that company. As for European banks, they've too taken on near worthless assets and destroyed their value in many cases, just as US ones have. Last I checked the US didn't have the power to dictate how a bank based in and operating in another country is run.

The only imaginary world is one where you somehow believe it's not any of the banks fault, but all down to government "socialists".

Absolutely, some businessness don't operate with regards to profit, but with regards to their owner's individual schemes...

See, the "actually... lead to destruction of that company" part, that is the important part... there ARE companies that operate based on deranged principles of their owner and not profit maximizing, and those companies DO fail... and are replaced by smarter, better managed companies.

Do you honestly beleive that all the banks one day woke up and said "I know, lets make a bunch of bad loans that will statistically loose us a ton of money", ALL AT THE SAME TIME? That when they saw the first few banks get into trouble, that they all just kept on doing it? the amount of patronizing involved in making such assumptions is mind boggling.

This is simply not how things have happened.

Can you actually be specific? what assets did they take?

Why don't you step out of this imaginary world and check out the laws passed by our Congress since the Carter administration. it was done little by little till it came to a head. the same was done to the banks in the 80's. Congress told the S&L's that they could lend 20% of their assets so they could compete with banks. Then suddenly in the 80's while Mr. Reagan was in office they changed the law saying that the S&L's could only lend up to 10% of thier assets. Then to be helpful they ordered that any S&L that was not in compliance within 12 months would be taken over by any bank with the money to bring them into compliance. The S&L's were forced to foreclose on homes in order to stay in business. when the S&L's that could not do this fast enough the Congress (liberal democrats that wrote both laws) screamed about the greed of american business.

The Community Re-investment Act was the final nail in the banks coffen. It orders the banks to make a percentage of loans to low income people and if they did not comply they would be investigated for discrimination. If found guilty they would have to pay a huge fine for each occurance and have the bank taken over by federal regulators just like the S&L's were 20 years ago. So they made the loans they knew people could not pay back, with the hopes that the Congress would actually do what they promissed, to back the loans with federal dollars. When the banks said hey you need to help us here. The Congress said you bankers are greedy and took advantage of poor people, you should be shut down for predatory lending practices. That my friend is the REAL WORLD.

This is true but remember the repackaged loans in America were supposed to be backed by the full faith and credit of the Government. This made the loans very attractive to Europe and Asia. By the way part of the TARP money went to Europe to satisfy those bad loans. That was part of the money wasted by AIG that the Congress was bitching about.

Now do you see how the banks were not self regulated? They could not and can not make a profit as long as we have a Congress that writes stupid laws regulating businesses they have no clue as to the workings. Each time the liberals try to make life easier for people they hurt millions and blame everyone but themselves.