一个人很容易这样争辩：既然成年男女乐于赌利率走向、美国房地产市场的强弱，以及谁会在企业界成功、谁会失败（例如通过信用违约互换），那就应该让他们自行其是。毕竟总有赢家和输家，或许输家会从错误中吸取教训，回来时变得更好。就像那个屡屡失败的赌徒，总是上瘾地回到赌桌前，满怀希望地期待一笔大奖。其假设是市场是有效的，输家会全额、按时付清，赢家则会欣然收取所得。这是一个荒谬的想法，它忽视了那些力不能及、勉强入局的人的低效：他们将难以偿还债务，而那些因赌博损失而彻底破产的人则更是如此。这次危机也不例外。

It would be easy for one to argue that if grown men (and women) are happy to gamble on the direction of interest rates, the strength of the US housing market and over who will, and who will not fail in the corporate world (for example with Credit Default Swaps), they should be allowed to get on with it. After all there is always a winner and a loser, and maybe the loser will learn from his mistakes and come back a better person. Like the perpetually failing gambler who always returns addicted yet expectant for a big payout, the assumption was that the markets are efficient and losers will pay out fully and on time just as the winners will gleefully pocket their gains. This is an absurd notion, which fails to take note of the inefficiency of those that get in out of their depth who will struggle to meet their debts and those that are completely wiped out by their gambling losses. This crisis is no different.

我们看到，公司拿“公司本身”下注，或者更确切地说，通过杠杆（贷款）下注，其金额是公司资本的许多倍。尽管拥有庞大的会计、风险管理和合规团队，全球最大的银行并未预见到这场风暴，最终陷入其中。它们被不断积累利润、押注规模越来越大、风险越来越高的梦想所蒙蔽，想当然地以为自己永远不会亏损。从首席执行官到交易员，所有人都对这一结果负有责任。然而，除少数例外，他们并未从事任何非法行为。制度和法律认可了他们所做的事情。问题的根源在于这一制度（资本主义）及其对交易和一般赌博的态度。据报道，苏格兰皇家银行和巴克莱银行这两家最大、最负声望的银行，根据其公开发布的报告和财务报表，各自持有2.4万亿美元的信用违约互换，几乎是英国国内生产总值总额的两倍。难怪它们两家都成为与英国政府救助讨论的焦点，而苏格兰皇家银行最终屈服了。

We’ve watched companies bet “the firm”, or to be more accurate through leveraging (loans) bet many multiples of the firm. Despite armies of accountants, risk experts and compliance staff the world’s largest banks did not see it coming and walked into the storm. Blinded by dreams of constantly accumulating profits on ever larger and riskier bets they just assumed they would never lose. And from the chief executives all the way down to the traders they are all culpable for the results. Yet, with only a few exceptions, they did nothing illegal. The system and the law endorsed what they did. The heart of the problem lies with the system (Capitalism) and its approach to transactions and gambling in general. Both the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays two of the largest and most prestigious banks have recently been reported to be each holding (according to their published report and accounts) $2.4 trillion dollars of Credit Default Swaps, nearly twice the size of Britain’s total Gross Domestic Product. Little wonder they have both been at the centre of bailout discussions with the British government with the RBS succumbing.

信用违约互换在迅速蔓延的信贷危机中扮演了重要角色，这场危机最终导致雷曼兄弟申请破产保护。同样，政府针对保险公司美国国际集团（AIG）的救助计划（迄今已达1240亿美元，且仍在增加），以及美林证券向美国银行的紧急出售，其根源也都在于信用违约互换泡沫。AIG已成为信用违约互换市场的主要参与者，它放弃了传统保险业务，转而涉足更为复杂、但据称利润更高的信用违约互换市场。作为信用违约互换的主要卖方，如果AIG倒闭，将导致与其有交易往来的众多其他银行和金融集团遭受数十亿美元的损失，进而使它们也陷入困境。多米诺骨牌就此真正开始倒下。雷曼兄弟尽管在华尔街历史悠久、地位显赫，却被视为可以牺牲，任其倒闭。然而，其倒闭在许多方面受到批评，因为它在当前危机中起到了关键作用。

Credit default swaps played a major role in the mushrooming credit crisis which led to Lehman Brothers filing for bankruptcy protection. Similarly the government rescue plan for insurer American International Group Inc. (AIG) ($124 billion and counting) and the emergency sale of Merryll Lynch & Co to Bank of America is rooted in the CDS bubble. AIG had become a major player in the CDS market, shunning traditional insurance for the more exotic and supposedly more lucrative CDS market. As a major seller of CDSs, had AIG failed, it would have triggered many billions of dollars in losses at numerous other banks and financial groups who traded with AIG, sending them into failure as well. The domino chain would be well and truly kicked off. Lehman Brothers despite its history and standing on Wall Street was deemed expendable, and was allowed to fail. Nevertheless its failure has in many quarters been criticised because it has played a key part in the current crisis.

通过清算,雷曼兄弟庞大的衍生品和杠杆头寸的全部规模变得更加清楚——目前仍有150万份雷曼衍生品合约,一大批律师团队正在艰难地逐一处理。它还引发了雷曼的“信用事件”,此前美国政府接管最大的两家抵押贷款公司房地美和房利美时已先后发生过信用事件。这些信用事件使金融体系的脆弱性暴露无遗,没有人知道下一个会倒下的是谁;在信用违约互换(CDS)和其他衍生品损失在体系内大量蔓延的情况下,也没有人知道谁能向谁付款。如果包括所有主要投资银行在内的最大银行都可能已经资不抵债,那么你还能信任谁?美国五大核心投资银行如今要么已经倒闭(贝尔斯登、雷曼兄弟、美林),要么放弃了原有的商业模式,转为可以获得特殊资金支持并受美国政府保护的银行(高盛和摩根士丹利)。

By going into liquidation the full extent of its massive derivatives and leveraged positions became clearer – there is still 1.5 million Lehman derivative contracts which a large team of lawyers are struggling through. It also triggered a “credit event” over Lehman, following the credit events of the Government takeovers of the largest US mortgage companies Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These credit events brought the fragility of the financial system into sharp focus and no one knew who would fail next, or with such large CDS and other derivative losses washing around the system, who could pay who. If the largest of banks including all the key investment banks, were possibly insolvent who do you trust? The five core US investment banks have now all either failed (Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Meryll Lynch) or abandoned their business model and become banks with access to special funding support and protections from the US government (Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley).