On the passing of the US Bailout Bill

Further thoughts:

1. Many people, including congressmen who voted for it, are saying that this was a bad bill but they 'had to be doing something'. To them I say 'Wrong. You need to be making good decisions, not "any" decision. A bad bill is worse than doing nothing, not better. Taking a step backwards is not progress. Never confuse frantic activity with progress.'
2. Like in many institutions I have been in, once people focus on one idea, other better alternatives that appear later get shunned, and people proposing them are often labelled 'out of step' or 'troublemakers'. However in the history of mankind, all changes start with one 'out of step' person, who is often misrepresented and/or shunned, as the thundering herd heads for the cliff. The herd is impatient, and like lemmings, take great comfort in all running the same way.
   
3. I have a lot of respect for those who votes against this bill on the grounds that it will not fix the problem, but will bail out failed corporates and mortgagees who mostly ought never to have had loans in the first place.
4. I am disappointed with both Presidential candidates who have shown no leadership, in following the herd, when they both know that this is a bad bill. They especially ought to have put up alternatives. Either could have suggested solutions whereby the loans remain where they are. However neither would do this for fear of becoming the owner of the problem. They decided to hide in the herd.
   
5. Perhaps I should let them read the essay I wrote in late 2001 pointing out a core problem with the western economic model that I still think is at the heart of their problem. I am still not sure they are ready for that though. Certainly the talking heads of the US legislature & the cable news channels seem incapable of extending their 3 to 10 second soundbytes more than one step beyond the obvious symptoms.
   
6. I expect the stockmarket will nosedive this week, probably beginning Monday 6th. Irrespective of short-term swings, the trend must be down for a while yet. The question is how far. In the interests of preventing panic I shall keep my thoughts to myself. As a student of history though, its hard to ignore its lessons: All empires come and go, and many collapse very quickly when the rot surfaces.
7. I hope the USA does not tear itself apart over this. I think they are too civilised for this to happen. More likely, if Obama is elected:

• They will cut back on the military budget (erroneously spun as 'defense' when its really for offense) and so put out of and lose military influence and presense in Iraq and Afghanistan. A weakened USA might create a power vacuum and problems in many countries, and Russia, Iran, and many 'terrorist' groups might flourish. Perhaps a great counter for this would be for the USA to follow the USSR into oblivion, replaced by up to 50 new countries. It would be hard for so many other entities to be at odds with a country that does not exist. Or perhaps the flag should not be waved so vigorously in the face of the rest of the world. I pointed this out in late 2001 as well. Many people do not like it.
  
• or Obama will be neutralised by the same type of shadowey figures that had been behind such acts as having Kennedy assassinated, helping the Taliban supply heroin to US GIs in Vietnam and elsewhere to finance the Taliban against Russia in Afghanistan, hiding behind the Bushes and pushing them into Iraq to keep their munitions and oil businesses going, coordinating the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Centre buildings and firing a missile into the Pentagon, etc ,etc.