Mike Beggs wrote:
>
it's just a figure of speech for the effect expectation of a
> bailout has on attitudes to risk.
Nothing is _ever_ JUST a figure of speech. This metaphor clearly asserts _some_ linkage, overlap, between some state actions and the decsions made by executives of financial institutions; specifically, it asserts that certain actions of extreme (nominal) risk, potentially harmful to many not directly involved, because the executive believes that if the decisions is a disaster the state will pay him for his mistake.
If people use the expression as a meaningless "figure of speech" (an entity which does not exist), then they are talking without thinking.
My 'definition' of the figure is sloppy and could be improved on, but it points in the right direction.
It is wortthwhile to look up "moral error theory" in wikipedia.
Carrol