A very weak article (author confuses reducing moral hazard with unrelated populist demands such as reducing CEO salary). US taxpayers have the right to request terms in exchange for the bailout they are funding- such as reducing the liklihood of predatory lending in the future.

Drew Atfield, Mt. Kisco, NY, US

We evolved as primitives, not really understanding numbers this huge. Some primitive tribes have numerical systems that go: 1-2-3-4 -many.

The total cost of this bailout is going to come to $7000 per man, woman, and child.

Washington DC needs LESS of our money, not more.

George Hanshaw, Seattle,

You are getting lost in a blizzard of words. If companies take the public’s money, they are in effect declaring bankruptcy and bankruptcy rules should apply. When someone lends money to a bankrupt, the lender (the taxpayer) has first claim on the assets and the stockholders take the last position.

Bill Kistler, White Plains, NY, USA

America's financial institutions today hunt for a quick buck rather than creating real value in the economy. If future executives believe there's a govt safety net for greed - the next fallout will be far worse. We're already passing so much debt to the kids, do we really need to add moral hazard?

Melinda, San Francisco, USA

When Paulson says its good for economic growth and stability, he means its good for bank profit growth - he is out of touch with the wider economy and merely assumes if the banks are ok the rest of the economy will follow. But if the wider economy has to pump $700 bn into the banks every 10 yrs?...

Ben P., Robertsbridge, UK

Fools love the word "moral" so long as it applies to the bad morals of others and their good ones. Moral hazard has little to do with ethics and all to do with mechanism design. If rules and policies for derivatives marketeers like Fanny et al, are designed to encourage cheating people cheat.

Jim Carmine, Pittsburgh,

No Mr Goodhart! NOT worrying about moral hazard now is like giving fire insurance to a pyromaniac with a box of matches and three burning houses behind him! You have to get the pyromaniac back in his box and the fire put out - and only then do you look to insure people smoke alarms that work.

Huw Sayer, London, England

Harumph harumph. Oh yes, the epic S&L bailout of the late 1980s decisively prevented further bad lending behavior didn't it? I guess 'moral hazard' -- like 'personal responsibility' -- only applies to the common people, not to the invisible hand of Mr Market on Wall Street.

Scott S, Portland, Oregon, US

What's all this preening about moral hazard and
making sure the taxpayer gets their due when
this limp Congress is currently relieving itself of
$1 billion daily into the sands of Mesopotamia.

Paul McCloskey, Chicago,

“refusing to sell fire insurance just after the Great Fire of London for fear of adversely affecting future behaviour”

If you ever had insurance, you would know that you would probably be uninsured after such a fire... Interesting how the "free/unregulated financial system" would treat you isn't it

J, Glasgow, UK

If the Wall Street Execs think they are too good to accept $400,000 a year (plus unlimited expense accts and acccess to corporate jets), let them go - in this post-traumatic Wall Street, the number of potential employers is rather limited.

J. Ram Ray, Silver Spring, MD, USA

You overlook that it is the Managers of these banks- the masters of the Universe- who are over paid beyond avarice and over indulged but unreasonably get out without penalty.

Both the hapless Shareholders and Tax Payers have no control whatever but are unfairly penalised without limit.

S Yogarajah, Harrow, England

If John McCain really suggested 'that no executive should be allowed to earn more than the US President,' then, in practical terms, he's an idiot, and in philosophical and political terms, he's a Marxist and a communist!

Geoffrey Woollard, Cambridge, England

So now those of us who oppose the bailout of irresponsible bankers are deemed to be 'fundamentalists'. That must make up the majority of the population then.

Paul, Coventry,

For $700bn you could buy all of the banks involved and all their assets, or simply buy shares in good banks which had not thrown away money and keep the system up just fine.
Paulson is running a scam for his banker buddies to transfer the losses from them to the taxpayer.

David Martin, Bristol, UK