Liberals and libertarians are unhappy with the bailouts but for different reasons. Liberals think that the government should have given the money instead to the homeowners on whom predatory lending took place, and if that couldn't happen, the alternative would be to step in and force the banks to take a loss by writing down the loan. This would have made the mortgage worth the same as what its collapsed price would be and would have set the stage for perhaps another speculation bubble, as unavoidable as dust. The banks, as a result, could have either collapsed, but it would have been fit for the government to nationalize them as needed, the way it did with auto industry.

Libertarians, however, think the banks should all have collapsed, because banks would then not be able to foreclose any house since they wouldn't exist anymore. At least, that's how I understand it.

Short-term profits, innovate or die, free market, they are all idiotic systems based on consumerism. The things that Apple are doing, like offering a recycling program, doing audit to ensure that workers have sanitary condition, eliminated toxic metals, are all things that it didn't have to do, and they are also things that don't benefit Apple's bottom line. Is there anything in the free market that suggest engaging in activities beneficial to society would make them more profitable? I say no because the free market doesn't care. It is an abstract, ideal system that has nothing to do with largely irrational people who buy Coke rather than Pepsi, and drink 64 oz of sugar water instead of plain water.