Yes because that is the responsible and realistic thing to do.

It's what Chuckles the Clown Schumer wants. Doesn't that give you a clue as to the validity of it?

Problem solved.

I'm dying to here your solution to the moral hazard problem.

Oh I know, lets bust up all these corporations so that no financial corporation has more than say...mmm...200 employees tops. That way nobody is too big to fail.

Unfortunately, that solution is beyond our grasp. In order to compete in a global market we've got to allow mega-corporations including mega-banks.

My solution to ths moral hazard problem is to start considering alternatives now, distinct from the bailout, get things stabilized, and then implement an attempt at a solution. Repeat as necessary. Doing otherwise will just create too much misery including lots experienced by folks who've done everything right.

The neo-classical synthesis does not claim that it will make everybody happy nor that some people won't be destitute, nor that welfare is maximized, only that welfare is optimized. In the near term that's not always an acceptable solution.

Blah.

Oh I know, lets bust up all these corporations so that no financial corporation has more than say...mmm...200 employees tops. That way nobody is too big to fail.

Corporatism here we come! Yay, it has worked so well for the Japanese.

Operationally, there's little difference between waiting until the catastrophe has already occurred and not acting at all.

And I think it is simplistic and irresponsible to continue to bail these people out whenever they screw up.

Yeah something will be done. Chances are it will be expensive, dumb, and/or wont work.

But hey, it will be realistic and responsible...I guess whatever that is worth.

Meh.

I agree that we can't let the chips fall where they may. But I also don't think that we should go charging in before the situation has been assessed and some ideas at least brainstormed around, rather than just assume that since Wall Street demands a bailout, we should give them one yesterday.

If your position is just let the chips fall where they may, that's both irresponsible and unrealistic. Something will be done because it's political necessary to do something. Chastising administrations for failing to act in response to economic hard times is a commonplace however ineffective government action is.

So, what's your plan?

Okay, how about we shoot every third person on Wall Street.

That's actually a more sensible policy than Paulson's bailout plan...