On Alain Badiou's 'This crisis is the spectacle:Where is the real?'

Crisis, crisis, the crisis is everywhere!!! Not a single day without hearing this word, it seems not even hiding in a cave in a forgotten forest would free you from getting it rubbed in. You cannot flee from it, you cannot hide and you got to have an opinion on it-and it better be a clever one even if you don't have a clue about what's going on. To be honest, just like Alain Badiou also mentioned in his text,I don't have a clue and I tried to pretend I do, trust me, but I don't. All I know is, banks go bust because they don't seem to know how to do their bloody job but don't get punished, instead managers get bonuses. I actually looked up the definition of it in the dictonary because I always thought you get these when you have done well, silly me, but it turned out I wasn't actually stupid as the definition of bonus (payment) is as follows:

' sum of money added to a person’s wages as a reward for good performance'

Right. Well done you banker. Have you lost a Billion Pounds? Never mind, there you go, have your bonus payment of 250,000 and go on a nice holiday to recover from all the stress.
Badiou talks about this as well and I totally agree with him that it is absurd that governments all over the world save the banks with amounts of money we cannot even picture in our heads whereas the general public has to not only endure this but also pay for it with higher taxes. But as soon as the subject of education and building or improving schools and universities comes up, the government says 'Sorry folks, we'd love to but there is just no money for it.'
I like how Badiou is describing everything like a scene from a disaster movie and how he is talking about how very low loans have become a sort of 'designer drug'. Overall I like his style of writing and do agree with a lot of things he says, although I do not share his love of the Marxist way of life. I do agree with him that capitalism can, and in fact does, trigger greed but I also think that it is the motor of our economy. Much like an old car, the motor inside might constantly make problems but without it the car would not be able to run at all. I do not think the basic principle of capitalism is such a bad thing at all. For example: Mr X comes up with an idea and starts to produce it on a small scale. He pays, let's say, 20 Pounds for all the parts and for whatever equpiment he needs to produce it. He then sells it for 25 Pounds and 'Ta-da!' he made 5 Pounds profit. For me that is totally acceptable as long as it does not get too extreme. But that's the crux. At what point does it get too extreme? Who determines what too extreme is? For me it becomes a problem when something it is getting mass produced in some far away country to keep production costs at a minimum and the John Doe who has set up his small buisiness has so much success with his idea that he hires managers and CEOs. Or in other words: When the person who has once started to produce whatever his idea was, is no longer managing, controling and working for his own firm anymore. When there are managers who do everything for him and the owner as a private person is no longer taking a personal risk. This actually brings me back to the bankers and the crisis and how Bardiou says that capitalism is

'devastating in its becoming' and 'irrational in its essence'. 

Fair enough. But is capitalism to blame for this crisis? In fact, are bankers even capitalists? Now this might seem strange but if you look up the basic meaning of capitalism and what a capitalist is, you will find that it is someone who is the owner of the means of production, in other words, someone who has machines. These machines are powered by the workers who are employed by the owner of the machines and who produce an added value. The owner, or capitalist, is responsible for his employees and machines and is taking risks with his personal assets. If something goes wrong he would lose everything, so he is carrying the responsibility and risk. Moreover the workers would not have any work without his ideas and machines. I think it would be fair enough to say that it is fine that he gets the profit. Furthermore he would probably invest part of this profit in his buisiness to enhance it. Let's now take a look at the finance world: the bankers, the banks etc., can we still say that they are responsible for themselves? Are they taking a personal risk while speculating with crazy amounts of money? I dare to say: No, they do not! If a bank goes bust not an individual person is liable, not an individual person is taking the risk, it is always a bunch of them. None of them is liable with their personal assets. That is the difference.
So I do agree with Badiou that banks should be nationalised or at least be controlled in some way, but I do not think that abandoning capitalism would help.