>>There's a subtle difference between "are not" and "are not necessarily". Minor details aside, it would be interesting to know some numbers, i.e. how much of this mess, in percentages or billions, was caused by bad decisions of these shareholders who are the majority of taxpayers.
>>
>>update: BTW, does Joe Q start to count as a shareholder just because he's got a bit of a retirement somewhere in a fund and the fund starts playing the odds?
>
>Most likely, yes, because this Joe had a choice in which fund to invest, and if he knowingly selected a stock fund then he is invested in the stock market. It looks to me pretty innocent. Obviously, I am unaware what sense you include in 'playing the odds' words.

Not necessarily... your 401k is something you choose once, and may check upon from time to time, but even that's a package. So you own several close-to-nothings in a few dozen places, and your authority to make a decision (as an investor) is limited to choosing the package. So saying that Joe Q is somehow sharing responsibility for the mass mess that market has got into is just like accusing the Floridians for the Iraq war. Sure, they chose as they did, and had they chosen otherwise maybe the history may have been different. But can't say they made an informed decision in that regard. How could they know?

Joe Q as the stockholder may have benefited some from the housing bubble and usurious interest rates - but was he consulted when subsane loans were underwritten? My doubts there. More likely, every time the market slumps, he incurs a loss, but those who conduct the transaction for him get their fee, and their CEOs golden parachutes often don't lose any of the sheen or diameter if they underperform. This doesn't stop them for justifying their decisions with their responsibility for handling Joe's money. When they screw up... they'll find something to do. Having been so close to money for so long, some of the gold dust must have stayed on the fingers.