@JPB,
Entirely reasonable skepticism JPB, but it comes down to trusting the Market, rather than trusting the people who play therein, because the latter can't be trusted but the former can be.
Although this crisis is a fairly simplistic play of economic principles, it is, for the individual, an understandably complex issue.
The market place is a self-organizing system, very much like the ecology.
The more outside interference, the more like the chance of an undesirable outcome, and yet both systems (along with others of a similar nature) present an irresistible target for supposedly reasoned human interference.
This is not to say that humans should not try to interfere with natural processes. We can't help ourselves from trying and we should not, but we need to understand the limitations and consequences of our interference.
Just about every time we have attempted to steer the local, national or global ecology it's been a disaster: Rabbits in Australia, Water hyacinth is China, pigs, gone feral, in Hawaii, eradication of wolves in northern America etc etc etc, and yet, despite the fearsome objections of one track minded environmentalist, we keep it up.
However, was the original notion so stupid? Was the result entirely bad?
Tough to say.
Unfortunately, most of the folks who respect our ecology as a self-organizing system that shouldn't be messed with by mere mortals are not only happy but also inspired to mess with our self-organizing economy.
There's room for tinkering with both, because we are humans and capable of transcending natural law (less so now than we will be, for sure), but, at present, we are not very good at it.
Most of us watch a NatGeo show and root for the rabbit over the wolf, wolverine, lynx, or hawk, but that's silly sentimentalism - or is it?
Of course, if the rabbit wins each and every time the predators die out and prey animal population explosion and then implodes.
And yet so many of us cannot bear the thought that the self-organizing Marketplace must have winners and losers to remain healthy.
This is Life: some people will suffer. Someday we will change the rules and this won't be true, but that day is hundreds, if not thousands, of years away.
Humans are messing with the Marketplace for good and bad reasons, and so we (Society) can't take an entirely hands off approach --- this bailout. However, if we attempt to introduce too much "messi'n" in the solution, we will only leave ourselves with more problems to face.
It's a damned delicate proposition.
Think though about whose advice you would believe:
The Secretary of the Treasury who has about 4 months left at his post, and no hope, what so ever, of reprising his role, or the folks who want to preserve their jobs in DC or assume bigger and better ones?
Our system of government is not based upon the noble intentions of humans, but upon their failings. This was the basis of the incredible intelligence of The Founders. Have faith in humanity but recognize, and design against, its weaknesses.
This bailout is a complicated mess of self-interest and selflessness. It would be foolish not to be pissed off, and it would be foolish to insist on some silly plan that promises to never let it happen again.
Personally, I think the schmucks who have buried their companies while making extreme personal fortunes should be left begging in Calcutta --- but for reasons of accountability, not retribution.
Keep in mind that while these schmucks made their fortunes, many others made out very well, as well.
The Schmucks probably, for the good of their companies and shareholders, should have been firing or laying off thousands of employees, but they didn't because to do so would have announced to the world that their company was in trouble. So thousands and thousands of American "Salary-Men" got to keep their jobs and their wages when, probably, they should not have.
Many now are out of jobs but do any of them suggest that they should have been so months or years ago?
The notion that we, as citizens, should all have an equal share of our nation's prosperity has been utterly debunked and anyone who continues to promote it is an ide0logical asshole.
Here's the deal:
Work ridiculously hard (Steve Job, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet et al) and work smart and you will have an advantage that translates into material rewards. You probably won't have much of a family life but you will likely be rich.
You don't want to work really hard because you think there is more to life than working? Good for you, but spare us the horseshit that so many of you spew that you should be rewarded at the same level as those who have decided that work is all.
You get what you work for.
If you work hard on your relationships, you get good relationships. That's the reward, not a share of the money earned by those who believe that working hard on business is most important.
Who is more despicable?
The driven bastard who ignores his family to make wealth for himself, his employees, and his shareholders.
Or
The lazy pompous shithead who argues that while he or she contributes very little materially to our economy, should get the same reward as the driven bastard because "it's fair!"
Here's the modern problem: The people who contribute to society in, arguably, ways that transcend economics now want to insist on a piece of the economic pie equal to those of the folks who actually fuel the economy.
What's worse, they want the low lifes who do nothing but suck life from the economy to profit as well.
They need to remain consistent.
Someone who prizes creative contributions over those of base capitalists, should be happy with their rewards and should not demean themselves by insisting on a share of the cut when they have contributed nothing to it.
As they are more than happy to lecture us, we don't all need to be rich....and neither do they.
