another

[here, you've got to start with the post written earlier and then come back to this one. Please do so.] Come get me. At any rate, though: what I notice here is that I could have italicised (="emphasized") the word "change," above. This is an important point. It all hinges on whether, or not, we want to, should, or are able to change or reform the basic macro-economic system itself. What we are seeing is a basic constitutional failure (I don't mean like the parchment document, I mean like constitution, of a body, of a system: one's constitutional health or integrity) to "attack" our system and change it. Just change it.
Is that hard to say? Of course, if anyone ever read this blog closely(even I myself don't! That stuff is hard!!), they can tell that I am supporting an idea of reforming the economic system, as against the standard free-market, traditional-conservative position which (if we stop to actually examine) says that since the system has to have cultural integrity or some kind of self-government, it follows that capitalism has to never be reformed. (That's an awkward sentence. Why? My fault or the system's? To rephrase: a system is natural and therefore the notion of reforming a natural is interference and incorrect) But I am a reformer. It is not that I am against freedom or the country's "American values." I just do not think that that has much to do with the matter of "hands off" on the economy. Now just how you are going to reform the economy is a separate matter. First I am saying that we do have to enact some kind of systemic reform or a real, genuine overhaul of the economic system itself (I am saying "yes" to that), and then of course you do have to ask what that would be. There has to be some content there. I gues I am trying to say that if you used the wrong program or made the wrong reform, it would fail.