Every ruler since the dawn of time has propped up the banking sector when it was in trouble. There's a reason for this. Large banks really ARE too big to fail because every company uses short term loans to handle day to day expenses. That's the 'commercial paper market' that came to a halt earlier this year. If all the banks failed and ended that market, most of the businesses in this country, especially the large ones, would cease to function the same day, and as one of the money managers (Paulson, I think, but I'm not sure) told congress, "we'd stop talking about the Great Depression then, because what we'd be in would make it look trivial."

They've got us by the short and curlies, and we got to this state by pulling back on all regulations about capitalization and risk management, but cussing them and cussing past leadership doesn't change the fact that they really do have a grip on us. I don't like the bailouts, and I certainly don't like what as been done with some of that money, but I recognize that we HAVE to fix it, even if it is extortion.

As for letting GM fail, I can understand that the web of suppliers below GM means that we'd take a MASSIVE hit. GM as a manufacturer, and GMAC as a financial body, have a significant impact on the total economy. Just telling them 'tough' might bring about a correction, but a correction that would involve much higher unemployment and much greater financial pain. Would we gain from that? It's hard to say how the country would be a better place with no domestic automobiles manufacturing. Ford might survive, though, so the loss of two out of three might be ok. That's a bitter pill to swallow, though.

I did notice that you expected companies to pay good salaries without unions. What do you think the unions do? They increase employment, keep wages high, and keep benefits high. Is it a good salary without any of those three? There are certainly companies that pay good salaries to blue collar workers without unions, but there are many more that would not, which is why there was a labor movement in the first place. Are the companies more enlightened now? If they had no fear of labor disputes, and had loads of workers to choose from (you've acknowledged that production will be reduced because demand will decline as prices rise, so there will be fewer jobs), would companies still pay high salaries out of the goodness of their hearts? Or would they be Wal-Mart?