[kenberg]

I've never said a bad word about speculators, nor, with regard to an earlier post, have I blamed the mess on the free market. I see the problem differently. We have, for better or for worse, an economy where government has made at least some claims that it will watch the big money boys and girls and keep the game from being too badly rigged. Federal Reserve Chairs, Treasury Secretaries, Senators, Representatives, all have taken on the job of seeing that the economy flourishes. I realize you (Dr. Todd) think this is a bad idea and maybe it is but what is really bad is to take on the job and then screw it up.
Whatever its merits, I doubt we will ever run our society on the general principles that I believe that you advocate. I am not much of a radical thinker so I am fine with the general idea of how we run the country and the economy but the current situation does give a guy pause. A Christian Scientist with appendicitis, as the expression goes. A friend has been suggesting for years that gold stocks are the way to go. Maybe so.

And Al: I like "The boy who cried Wolfowitz".

[Al_U_Card]

They are, appropriately, as thick as thieves. The cronyism and the loyalty before competence creed goes beyond partisan boundries.

They want to REDUCE transparency? They are almost so opaque that they cannot distinguish one lie from the other in the resulting darkness. Just keep on denying and trumpet the jingoistic sentiment or the sky is falling rhetoric.

Like I said. The fundamental problem lies in the difference between money and credit and the fact that those in control of the wealth want to insure that it stays that way.

Would be interesting if, like campaign contributions, that no one could own assets or make more that, say $ 1,000,000 per year. Any excess derived or produced would be subject to disclosure and redistribution (with appropriate future credit for eventual shortfalls...as in how many years of life expectancy that you have left, say).