wow, you sound like a von mises tinfoil hat guy.
the cost of prescription drugs has little to do with insuring the uninsurable and everything to do with lack of free market pricing in prescription drugs (prices are set by insurance). and its largely u.s. specific, since we subsidize the research budgets of big pharma through our overpayment. that's a bubble worth popping. the same goes for medical care: here, obama is right: costs can be constrained by strongly encouraging preventative care and by getting the uninsured out of emergency rooms for routine care.
"Goes to show that Hollywood is terrible place to learn economics, finance, history and public policy."
well i learned it at yale and mit. i was appealing to the vulgar medium in case that was your only exposure to nash and his legacy.
the enron example is correct but misplaced: with fractional reserve lending, there can be a run on any bank and it will make it come tumbling down. that's the nature of the beast. you may disagree with the implemenation of that policy, but nevertheless it is a fact: your money just ain't there.
which is what galls me about all these fox newsies (huckabee is a great one for this) who always talk about letting the banks fail, they lost their money, yadda yadda. no, they lost *our* money.
"All that guarantee is of course not free . . . instead, it's a transfer of weath from the prudent to the imprudent, well the public at large to the well-connected."
yeah, its a bad thing, people should go to jail, its not fair, etc. i agree. so you want to be the only guy with a stash of treasury bills while the rest of the country wallows in 25% unemployment, economic stagnation, widows and orphans eating catfood in the gutter? is that really an option? i think not. it might be best for you, the prudent, but its likely not best for everyone.
but then, who said life was fair?
