A confidence game.

If it's really true, as I've always felt, that certain "free" markets--financial "instruments" and money maneuvering, things other than banks lending money--are a racket, then it gives one pause: the thought that feeding the injured pit bull might not be the best thing for the rest of us.

Sure, tax breaks to those that will spend or create jobs; infusion into infrastructure and incentivize technological research. But blindly recapitalizing institutions that screwed us once (really more than once) already? Well, then, doesn't it seem a bit counter intuitive to let them do it again? Why can't we just take them over? We're the only game in town now, seemingly, anyway.

The government is the one thing that can give a sense of certainty, security for these "toxic" assets. Part of the reason they're worthless is because of the institutions that are holding them. Either off their heads (!) and replace them with new ones, or at least down with their salaries--they're bitching about the need for bonuses to be given and high salaries paid to keep these people on; why do we still want them?

But even for those who didn't take part in the bailout and still have had a bad year(s), what about the financial responsibility to the stock holders? What about stockholder responsibility, the risk involved in investing in the all this stuff, for that matter? Or those who choose to work in finance, in the first place. They're all geniuses who worked hard for all that money; but now that they've lost it all, it's not their fault? Capitalism when the economy's good and socialism when it's bad.

Seriously though, right now, it's just bad p.r. for any company or Wall St hack to seem too indulgent. And if you do take money from the government, serious money, than you have to show what it's going towards. And though, yes, you do have to spend some on salary, keeping people employed--it was a bad year! They're lucky to have a job at all. A lot of sectors of the economy are bad, at no fault of their own, but Wall St. actively took part in causing, nay creating this aggregate-mess.

All nationalizing has to be, and this is without heavy new regulation, is more stringent oversight. Until we get some people in there (the administration, regulatory agencies and Congress) that actually know what's been and is now going on, forget about being able to watch over people on Wall St. if we just throw a bunch of money at them, uninformed and unconditionally.

Paradoxically, that's exactly what you have to do if you're in the private sector, they say. It's called incentive. But if you're the government then it's pork; throwing good money after bad. You need to pay the most to get the best people, so it goes, but then why doesn't the government compete, and do the same? It shouldn't, it can't, they say. And they're right that it can't--but only because government has been handicapped from doing so by the very belief that it shouldn't.

No, the government will never do better than the private sector in recruiting talent unless it becomes cooler to be in government. And if that's not done through higher salaries, a sea change in the priorities and value systems of our "best and brightest" (like viewing public service on par with owning a Hummer) is needed to engender more competition with the private sector. It's possible.

At some point, the money involved in most of our lives become such abstractions that things like greed and values can become so too. Economic-greed is trope of American life, and as such is well ingrained. Though irremovable completely, competing narratives have and can actively shift the money-greed paradigm--see radicalism, cults and religions. To what? Maybe we'll find out.

Anyway, it seems to be the sentiment of the new guy, Geitner, that the TARP money was given out too casually the first time around, and he won't make the same mistake.

I know: some greed is good; needed for the financial system to work more efficiently. But, that only greed need be, or even should be the sole economic sphere of the culture, well, that's just too narrow a view.

People speak easily of patriotism. To me that implies belief in the at least the possibility that government can function for the benefit of people; and in a creative, inventive, proactive way, not just serve a restrictive, conservative function. Where's all that American ingenuity? This has to be about more than a bastion of freedom and liberty, abstract though still compelling ideas, that's even part of simple anarchy.

Institutions. Physical, problem-solving, groups of people, formed by a elected, representative government.

We're supposed to be about more than just a playground for the smart and strong and lucky--the rest be damned. Fuck that. People are pissed, like 1789-French style. Rich is going out of fashion. Maybe.

Privilege is fine; too much is not. How then is that to be determined? Well, I recommend not waiting until the mobs start tramping down the gates of private sub-divisions.