When it comes to rescuing an insolvent country, continent, or entire financial system, at the end of the day it is a simple question of maths: is "doing it" cheaper than the alternative. Recall that the IIF was heaping fire and brimstone on bondholders and threatening the world with $1+ trillion in losses if bondholders did not comply. That nobody has any clue just what said costs, and opportunity costs, are, does not matter: the status quo must be preserved at all costs. And the status quo is one of avoiding private losses at the expense of taxpayer capital. Enter Credit Suisse with its back of the envelope analysis of the cost of not bailing out Europe's insolvent PIIGS, and the (taxpayer) cost to "save" them.
Needless to say, it is a foregone conclusion that according to CS' back of the envelope analysis, not rescuing peripheral Europe would cost at least €681 billion - much greater than the cost to bail out the PIIGS at €627 billion. What is not noted, however, is who bears the costs. Obviously, in the first case the costs would accrue to the banker cartel; in the second one it is simply the taxpayers who have to keep funneling over their hard earned pieces of worthless fiat. As such one can make the argument that if even €1 of bankster money was at risk, it is irrelevant how much money taxpayers would stand to lose - whether it is €1.01 or €1 quadrillion. After all, this is merely "money" that can be printed, either overtly, or covertly (via LTROs) by the appropriate central banks, a process that would then be funded by more public debt issuance, and further enslavement of future generations of taxpayers. Unfortuntely, the latter is not the bankers' concern. They have a few years to get rich, and to a deportation-free country. Everything else is noise. Which is why until the very end, many more trillions in fiat will be thrown at the altar of Moloch before there is nothing left.
Cost of no bailout:
Cost of bailout.
Bottom line: the math doesn't lie. As for everyone else? That's a different matter entirely.