Too interconnected and too indebted to fail?

Looking at the picture below, inquiring minds should wonder if it makes sense and what and who are being bailed out.

I still contend that in the EU there is some creation of money out of thin air made by banks allowed to have 40-60 leverage ratios investing in assets (sovereign debt) considered "too safe to fail". We are not bailing out any of the PIGS countries, we are just and again bailing out those banks which lent to governments. The latter are just allowing them to manage their assets and liabilities with such high ratios and make bigger profits. In this way the Ponzi scheme goes on.

Since banks and governments owe each other many billions of euros I believe that it would really make more economic sense: a) the issuance of EU bonds. In fact, the so-called "no-bailout clause" of the Maastricht Treaty specifically stated that the community would not assume the debt of individual EU member states. However the debt interconnectedness and the recent bailout package alter that clause in practice as well as any other EU  balancing budget rule (it's to be noted that actually the Pact's rules have so far been weakly enforced) b) The taxation of financial transactions and banks, including the systemic risk created by the "Europe's Web of Debt". Can you imagine the amount of revenues from this kind of taxation during these days?

Under the above circumstances, it is regrettable the ECB's decision to put more money in circulation by buying government bonds. Actually what should be done is to write-off all those loans, which the banks count as assets because they were expecting to be paid back and the money in the Euro-zone would be counted simply as destroyed. That's deleveraging the economy.

Buy the Rumors, Sell the Facts

Inquiring minds are still looking for explanation of yesterday's selling on most financial markets, particularly Wall Street.
There are rumors of computer/exchange problems being blamed for intensifying the selling. A number of high-frequency firms and trading programs are likely to be the cause of the market sell-off.


I wonder why there is still somebody against a financial transaction tax, particularly on high frequency trades. Can you imagine what could be done with the big revenues made by governments on a day like yesterday just taxing some trades?
Why are there still doubt to make the finance industry to pay more?
Who now internalizes the costs of market volatility?


Perhaps there were simply some institutions forced deleveraging and unwinding positions, call it speculative or not. Perhaps it's just about sovereign debt worries or unwinding of Ponzi schemes around the world.

Yet I do not understand why we should continue to transfers money from taxpayers to financial institutions and banks bailing out countries and creditors "too big to fail" or more and more accustomed to "Gambling with Other People's Money".