Economic crisis

Most everyone is now agreeing that part of the rescue package must include the government stepping in to rescue banks by buying equity in them, thus becoming part owners and giving taxpayers the potential for recouping the investment when the economy improves.

George Stephanopolis asked Jim Baker why he supports that move, given that it is diametrically opposite to Ronald Reagen's economic policy when he was Reagen's Secretary of Treasury. Baker said, "yes, but it's necessary now because of the circumstances. This crisis is simply too big for the private sector to be able to manage without government help."

Hello??!! Doesn't this sort of prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that an unregulated and unfettered private sector is not the answer they declared it was? That without deregulation this might have been prevented instead of frantically bailed out at the cost of trillions? It seems to me that Obama is right, that this economic crisis is the final proof that the Republican economic policy doesn't work.

The economy has to be stabelized quickly -- but then the system has to be fixed. We should not let this lesson get lost: the Reagen revolution didn't work and it is over.

As they're now saying in Britain, "We're all Socialists now." I doubt many here will go that far, but in fact what they're talking about is partial nationalization of the banks.

There is a difference, however. The equity shares that the government will buy are to be non-voting shares. The government itself may re-impose regulations on the industry and the system, but the ownership of non-voting bank equity shares will not give the government voting power as a stockholder in those individual banks.

Ralph