Some persons are pretending they know what they are doing but it doesn't make sense. How can one have this kind of knowledge, of what one is doing, when one's policy --- the economic policy of the country --- is to give away money; and not to the people who comprise the population of the country so that they may conduct their business affairs but rather it is given to the rich, and to institutions, who were, right up until the lost ten or even one hundred billion (one thousand million) or more dollars, called "private" businesses. They lost this money in what had up until yesterday been called the market system. This was what they said until yesterday rolled up. (Shock therapy!! Times change! Get out your Naomi Klein book!) All of the "conservative" faction of the government said that they had been supporting a whole set of values that were values of what they called the market. But then the government focused on just one part of their so-called market system and bailed just that part out. The distinction between "pro-market" conservatives and "regulators" also dissolved. Not only the "conservatives" but others as well jumped on the bandwagon -- a bandwagon to bail out wealthy people.
But in an entirely different respect, the bail out itself does not make sense because they say the loans will be repaid. But even the loans out now were not repaid. How could all of the new loans be repaid if the present ones cannot be? Not that it is only loans. I believe some of it is also outright gifts. Am I correct?
Am not sure if I am correct about that. We think of it as gifts, but they say it is loans so maybe part of it is loans. That means the rest of it is gifts. Or part of it is gifts and the rest loans. I'm not sure. The truth is that I have lost interest. To take an interest would mean I am following something that does not make any sense. Amd that could be a waste of my time.
If we are going to lubricate the system with more money, it should just be that we distribute this money directly to the people. That is the basic function of making loans anyway, in a capitalistic system. It feeds capitalism -- "growth." Since a capitalistic system allows all the persons in the country to engage in free trade (or whatever the domestic economic freedom is called, and I do not see why that should be called free trade because what it is is freedom to engage in the economic activities of capitalism), when the system gives out loans --or gifts for that matter --it should logically be to the persons who live in or comprise that system. We don't expect that but it is the more logical idea.
Wouldn't it have made more sense if the nation had just said to the "investment" professionals: "your system did not make sense, so now we are going to have to change it"? Presumably, those people are "too big," and too prestigious, "to fail." So we all do. We all fail.
There is also the question of what those investment workers or financial sector workers would do if they were allowed to lose their sources of income. Presumably the problem would be that they'd form militias and attack us, or start sending the rest of the people arsenic in envelopes? If that is not the case, then what would be the problem?----except that the U. S. government is held hostage to the rich?
Disclaimer: if somehow I said something just now that made sense....I swear I didn't mean to, and I am really really sorry.
Jack S. Silverman,