This is just a quick post because the thought occurred to me while considering the blatant hypocrisy of the Federal Reserve and the USG bailing out/taking over banks.

See, we need banks in order for our monetary system to function. Without them we'd all be carrying too much cash or we'd make our homes a magnet for home robberies. Banks also allow for a much smoother and faster (believe it or not) transfer of money from one person or corporation to another.

Sure, they also allow for quite a bit of money laundering (read: crime) but there's essentially no modern tool of society that can't be repurposed for corruption and greed. The point is, we need the banks.

So, the USG and The Federal Reserve effectively nationalizes a bunch of them. Now the Fed is not really part of the government--the USG pretends to oversee it but really, the Fed chairmen over the years have been so good at obfuscation that I blame no politician for not wanting to exert force over these guys. Of course, I DO blame politicians for not doing it despite not wanting to--but I'm getting off-topic.

OK, so here the USG/Fed are, taking over banks--essentially owning said banks. So, now our tax dollars (and any investments in the Fed) make each of us (and investors in the Fed) partial owners of these banks. You know what this looks like, right?


Or even Socialism.

Or both!

So, isn't this completely hypocritical of a government whose excuse for not nationalizing health care is that government-run health care would be too much like socialism?

Doesn't this make the government completely full of shit when it gives us any reasons for anything (especially after losing all credibility in stating facts about "enemy" countries)?

Let's also consider how nationalized health care benefits would help hundreds of thousands of people--possibly millions of people--who don't have health care insurance (like yours truly).

Yes, banks are important, too.

But which is more important to prop up?

1) America's financial health
2) Americans' actual health

I say both. Instead, we worry about "isms" and assume that they're all bad except for the one the rich folks practice: Capitalism.

The catch is, that we can see that no regulation on banks has gotten themselves into this predicament. Our economy is failing and some people are calling for even LESS regulation. It's unchecked greed that caused this problem.

Surely, as with complete socialism, you can see that complete capitalism is also dangerous. Leaving everything to the "free market" means greed and power can rule all things.

Only a just set of regulations can keep the power-brokers from abusing their power.

This is especially obvious when you consider that sometimes socialism is OK. The USG/Fed and the rich folks of America are happy to see the banks be bailed out. Meanwhile, I would like to see health care be free for all Americans.

So, once you realize that in some cases socialism is OK, why do so many people insist that we stick to one "ism"? Surely, ANY extreme is bad--so why not regulate socialism AND capitalism and any other "ism" that will help America and the American people be stronger?

Why is Muslim extremism bad and Christian extremism not?

Why was Soviet extremism bad and American extremism not?

Why is Socialism bad, except when it helps the rich?

How can you say your way is better or best and assume that other folks who say the same thing about their own way are wrong?

What if you're both right and in some ways bits of all ways just might be the best way of all?