> I am not sure what your point is.
I'll try to type more slowly. The "Swedish Solution" is not being considered in this case by anyone other than bloggers, *because it will not work*. You say that it's not being considered "because of power" -- to which I "call BS" and invite you to prove it, by showing how, if only they'd disregard "power" they could in fact make it work. It's a simple proposition.
> Therefore, it does not really matter what the technical
> details of the "Swedish solution" are.
You're just making this up. Of course it matters.
> The only thing that matters is that the "Swedish solution" stands
> for (i.e. is a code word for) a challenge to private ownership
> of finance capital in the eyes of both the US oligarchy and its
> detractors alike.
C'mon, fess up: you don't even know what it would mean to implement what Sweden did, let alone what the mechanics would look like in the US at this time.
Right?
> Debating such technical details is not only pointless but also
> counterproductive ...
Well, the debate is what the debate is -- you can say the whole thing is beneath you, but then I think you should just keep it to yourself. There's a not insignificant group of people -- Paul Krugman chief among them, but our very own Doug has also expressed this position strongly -- who ARE arguing from what appear to be technical grounds. A very well thought-out response has been formed and put on the table. There are a few commentators who have discussed some of what Michael has put into lbo-speak, but largely they are in the minority.
It's off the table at Treasury, I suspect, because it simply would not work. Maybe the facts of the matter support your otion of "power" in this case, but that's merely coincidence and not the driver.
/jordan