I almost hate to reply to this thread. But here goes anyway.
Who is anyone else to question the CEO of Goldman Sachs on matters of money
Me. I remember one day in college a long time ago, I looked over at my roommate's bed. His girlfriend had carved into the paint on the wall "question my motives" while he was not there. That kinda stuck with me and I tend to question the motives and be skeptical of anyone with power. The more power, the more skeptical.
A massive amount of people here in the U.S. are stupid beyond belief. All of those low-class Americans such as Juanita or Lateesha with their 4-8 children and no husband in sight, and/or the farmers in Nowheresville, Kentucky/Iowa/Alabama all think they know what's best for the United States of America, when they can't even understand the terms of their mortgages! (Excuse the blunt political incorrectness)
The worst part about it is that the stupid breed more than the intelligent!
Look, I'm certainly not in favor of a monarchy, but at the same time, I don't believe that government officials elected by imbeciles that don't know what's best for themselves--let alone the country--should have the right to butt into the work of Hank Paulson!
This is so un-American I can hardly stand it. "low-class Americans such as Juanita or Lateesha with their 4-8 children and no husband" ?? Language like this... well, it boils my blood. These aren't even the people calling in to congressmen worried about their mortgages. You seem to have singled them out based on some class or race bias against poor urbanites. I'm glad Adam stood up for the farmers, who invented forward markets. But again, it was middle class folks in the suburbs with mortgages, by and large, who were outraged about the 'bailout.'
This country's founding principles are of protection of minority rights--minority religions, classes, education level, smaller states, and (eventually) race and gender. To exclude any group from the political process (by which decisions are made) is unconstitutional and a bit of a moot discussion point. Ilya, I'm not sure you recognize the offense in your diction.
All that aside, I agree with the point you so offensively are trying to make. While this bailout (er, economic rescue plan?) was being debated in the house and many representatives were getting calls and therefore holding up the process, I was saying the same thing. Most people don't understand finance or economics and if you call it a Wall Street Bailout Plan then no one will want to support it. Congressmen up for re-election were in a tight spot on this one and the politicians did not sell the bill well to the people. I would have reluctantly supported the bill but hated myself for it. The time to act was years ago, but as many have pointed out, it's hard for a politician to change something that is making people so much money. I won't go on about this.
I'm not a math wizard; I'm not a financial genius; I'm not an economic expert, or for that matter an expert in anything. But I do pride myself in my diverse interests and ability to look at all sides of a problem, trying to gain a better understanding about the way things are and how they could be (I was not always like this when I was younger and smarter).
Government is not a for-profit business intent on maximizing profits in the most efficient manner. Public finance balances fairness with efficiency. I could go on about this too, but I've already strayed.
Oh, and if you like Hank Paulson so much, why don't you marry him?
