1) Is it at all a debate about state intervention "in principle" in US-Congres? May be it is more a conflict about who will controll this state intervention next - after the election? And the rejection of the bailout more a symptom of a republican "Après moi les deluge"/"devil may care"-position?
2) Isn't some kind of special legislation needed, because the FED is already so engaged in stablizing the financial markets, with quite a lot of special assets in the balance sheeds?
3) Up to this moment I heard as the central motive for the bailout - and other plans - to "restore confidence in the markets". Can we think of any plan in with broader nationalization of financial firms - or including sharp taxing of Wall Street - to reach this aim? Would this fit to the importance of private property in the US-economy, politics and every day religion?
Revolution need a minimum of "not more able to rule" of the ruling class and a minimum of "not more willing to be ruled" in the working class. Even a financial meltdown does not in general change the relation of forces in society in this direction, at least not in european history.
4) Is this conflict about the bailout at all an interior problem of the US? May be it is more a conflict about the interior cost-sharing of the =0 Ainternational position of the US-economy - with consequences for others too? Other players - emerging asia, the UK, euro-zone - take part in the conflict, not only on the markets.
Sebastian ________________________________________________________________________ AOL eMail auf Ihrem Handy! Ab sofort können Sie auch unterwegs Ihre AOL email abrufen. Registrieren Sie sich jetzt kostenlos.