Capitalism with a moral framework is my suggestion. Possible?

Well, I’d like to think it was. The real challenge would be in finding that fine line between allowing the free market to run, while making sure it was regulated enough to keep it on track.

Let us hope that we learn the lessons of what pure greed does for the economy and legislate.

Capitalism with a moral framework is my suggestion. Possible?

I agree, that it is probably right to say there was a larger circle of benefit than I originally allowed – although I claim poetic licence. However, I think that a lot of this benefit was illusionary. If we take house prices as an example: Here in the UK house prices have risen at phenomenal rates over the last 11 years (and plummeted over the last six months…). Other than a small group of home owners who are downsizing, increased house prices across the board provide no real benefit. Sticking with the UK the effect of this monstrous rise has been the gap between “house bands” has vastly outstripped people’s ability to jump – by this, I mean the jump from a 2-bed to a 3-bed to a 4-bed, or from semi-detached to detached. In effect, while the value of a persons house has increased, the money they need to spend to get a better house has increased more.

I fully agree that the reasons the bill failed (and continues to fail) are much more complex than I could ever understand, let alone explain here. I was, on the whole, simply trying to put forward the objections I would have had against it – had I any say (which I dont).

I loved your comment about the fiscally responsible conservatives – the mind truly boggles at the denial and self delusion that allows people to hold to that in the face of the current evidence.

My comment about McCain/Palin was a touch tongue in cheek – although having seen occasional bits of them both, I cant for a moment accept that someone thought either of them would be functional in a position of national command….

Secondly, is it really the `punitive’ measures which scuttled the bill? At least from the few reports I’ve read so far it seems other issues were at stake. The capitalist `purists’ are upset that it is ‘the first step on the slippery slope to socialism’ – worried about basically nationalising the assets and ‘government interference’. The popularists are basically listening to your line of reasoning – it’s offering a golden parachute to the risk takers while offering a golden shower to the rest of the nation. It’s probably also not insignificantly related to some form of denial of responsibility – if the republicans admit this sort of unprecedented response is necessary, they are also admitting they were a significant element in the worst financial crisis in history. And whomever gets voted in next will be worried about having all that money tied up. And … if it wasn’t going to work anyway, there’s probably about enough time for everything to fall in a heap by the election, whereas doing nothing provides a distraction, and an opportunity to blame others.

Your last point about messing things up for the next government is something that’s crossed my mind too. 700B would really dent any spending plans for instance. And people’s memories are alarmingly short – a few people are losing houses now, but the hard times are just starting to kick in, and they wont be fixed in 4 years. So who will people remember as causing all the hurt? Then the ‘fiscally responsible’ conservatives (how they get away with that utter lie still is way beyond me) can come to the rescue …

However, I don’t think McCain and Palin were chosen as a joke … which is a lot more worrisome than if they had have been. Palin was probably a cynical (and apparently successful) appeal to the religious-nut-right and an even more cynical (and hopefully futile) appeal to white women upset with the Democrats over Clinton. Hopefully the VP debate can completely crush Palin, she’s a nasty piece of work. Winning US elections doesn’t appear to be about appealing to the majority of voters, but appealing to just enough of the minorities to cross the line (with a bit of fraud thrown in).

I think, if anything, the cost to the average taxpayer must be a lot higher because of the all the children and non-taxpayers who make up the population.

Very true – for example my tax burden would be in the region of £4000. Great isn’t it. I feel so pleased I have been part of this risk taking strategy. I have benefited so much from it, the risk seems justified to me…..

Reallly good post. I think, if anything, the cost to the average taxpayer must be a lot higher because of the all the children and non-taxpayers who make up the population.

With regard to the UK, all the public utilities were sold off for peanuts, at the same time and all the traditional bullding societies became “banks”, supposedly because of the wonderful efficiencies of monetarist capitalism. BUT – at the first sign that monetarist capitalism (which is basically completely non-productive) can’t make money by its usual magic tricks, then we all have to pay for it…

I don’t understand it at all, so much kudos to you for a clear explanation.