Massive media attention followed worldwide. And comments.
Though not all media coverage was accurate or informative, most refrained from direct editorial. Comments on the other hand, such as those here, were less restrained. While some were analytical, many were along the lines of “I told you” – especially in the US media.
In a free market choices have consequences. Some choices turn out to be good (i.e. utility-enhancing), others less so. This is normal and is the process which creates wealth.
In a controlled “market” by contrast, choices are restricted – and of course results are, as well. In Socialism v2.0, typically the idea is to provide (limited) choice between very similar “options”, in combination with security and predictability. At least that’s how it’s marketed.
If in a certain sector of society free choices are severely curtailed – as is the case for investment and money in the United States – then many people will tend to forget the fact that free choice comes at a price. In such a case, they may well react with shock when witnessing the consequences of bad choices. Why? For the simple and understandable reason that they have little experience with the upside offered by good ones.