I listened to that show when it originally aired, so thanks for the link. I've been looking for it. Did anyone say these weren't bad guys? This IS NOT about bailing out the bad guys. This is about dealing with the credit squeeze before we enter an economic death spiral. If that is the medicine necessary, or even the only medicine we can get, and if we're truly as sick as it seems, then so what if it collaterally bails out those guys. We should have been punishing them before; we can in the future, but right now, the only question is what will happen if we don't do this.
one might expect that if you're going to attack the Democratic nominee, even if you're the site's owner, that you should have data to back up your attacks, some alternative solution, and perhaps some objective discussion. Just a thought.
You have no idea if credit has eased. The stock market gyrations give little idea of the availability of credit. In all likelihood the availability of credit is worse than it was two days ago. There is not a single good measure of this that I've heard of.
You make the mistake of many in thinking that the rise and fall of the stock market is the problem. It is not. It is a reaction to an underlying problem.
I don't know the total answers to the questions, but I know enough to know your answers are wrong.
Yes, some financial institutions will take a big hit, and it's many more than your answer implies. These high risk investment vehicles are quite wide spread. Why? Because they could. I laugh at the Republicans who today said that the problem isn't capitalism. It's greed. Ya right. The essence of capitalism is greed. It's what makes it work.
So the initial damage will be widespread, and because these financial institutions are be all and end all do everything companies, damage to the economy will be extreme. With no available credit, many businesses that had no original sin are going to fold. The question is, how bad is it going to get.
As for the bailout only helping the gamblers. You have no evidence of that.
But, your solution seems to be to just let it ride and see what happens. Life is going to get very interesting in the next few months.
The fact is that Nader knows his effect on elections and does it anyway. He knows, or should, that he is responsible for Bush being President, and yet he runs again. He does this because he's addicted to the attention, and he justifies it by pretending there's no difference between Bush vs. Gore, or McCain vs. Obama, and that makes him a dangerous fool.
The reality is that there is nothing, NOTHING, more important to moving forward progressive causes than making sure our next President is Barack Obama and NOT John McCain. Want to fantasize that a far far left candidate will someday be president. Go right ahead, but most of us are far more interested in getting something done than in taking some non-bending supposedly idealogically pure stand.