In the UK, I'm sure you'll be aware, Northern Rock Bank has recently been "taken into public ownership" because the government felt that the private offers were too low. This is apparently different to "nationalisation" but nobody seems to be able to explain how. The plan is to re-privatise it at a later date.

It may be of interest to know that Northern Rock was originally a building society which demutualised in 1997 when the government said that it would be good for competition if the many building societies could do the things that banks could do. The snag was that they would have to become banks in order to do that. Initially, account holders were given shares and carpetbaggers quickly opened accounts in a lot of building societies that were going to demutualise just to get free shares. This may have further weakened the organisation when the run on it occurred in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. The irony is that as a former building society they ought to know more about the mortgage business than banks because saving and mortgages is virtually all that building societies do. It is satisfying to know that my own building society did not demutualise and did not get involved in sub-prime lending.

God forbid the government should help those folks who are behind in their mortgages because of practices of the Bear Stearns crowd in the financial markets. The thunderous quiet of a Bear Stearn's bailout from the right is in marked contrast to the outcry of socialism from the same Republican/Conservative factions when the government may be assisting ordinary people. Can you spell "hypocrisy"?

Wall Street argues that the market is self-correcting and that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is all that is necessary. That may have been true in the 18th century when corporations were small and relatively equal. But in the 21st century of huge, near-monopolistic entities, Smith's intuition simply doesn't work - if it ever really did.

As to your post about banks - the US deregulated banks in the 80's and that led directly to the largest bailout in US history as the banks tanked leaving the US taxpayer with the bill.

Unless we want to return to feudalism, modern societies need regulation in the financial markets. Intelligent regulation that allows for the free movement of markets but also protects the wider society. It's never an easy thing to do, but the alternative of a new "laissez-faire" is far worse.

Political thinkers since Aristotle have warned against the oligarchs hoarding and centralizing the wealth of a society. See France in 1789, Russia in 1917, even Rome 2000 years ago. Not to speak of the Irish in 1845 who produced enough food to feed themselves, but millions starved because of a misguided ideology of free trade.

So people who signed up for questionable mortgages get their mortgages paid off by the gov't with taxpayer money, yet those of us who pay our mortgages every month get nothing. This is fair?"

To repeat your question, John, is this fair?

I note that some banks are pulling certain types of mortgage which they say they will reintroduce when market conditions are right.

See this story:

The Co-operative Bank has confirmed it is to withdraw its range of two-year fixed rate mortgages.

A statement from the lender announced that the loans will be taken off the market today and cited "unprecedented levels of customer interest and demand" for the products as the principal reason.

The rash of applications was fuelled by rival lenders withdrawing similar products and increasing numbers of mortgage holders seeking the security of a fixed rate.

John Barker, head of mortgages at the lender, said: "We pride ourselves on our ability to create long-term customer relationships and will not compromise our market leading levels of customer service, by simply chasing business volume at any cost.

"We have as a result, therefore, decided to withdraw our two-year mortgage range on a temporary basis."

News of the move comes after online bank First Direct yesterday said it has called a halt to all new mortgage lending for an indefinite period.

Meanwhile, Nationwide and Halifax have both raised repayment rates in an attempt to stave off demand.

In both cases, further devastating effects were avoided by government intervention, and at a hefty price. Regulation, previously in effect in both cases, would have prevented the crises and saved everybody a whole lot of money.

This isn't your grandfather's world anymore; it is a highly complex, multi-faceted, inter-dependent economic system that requires intelligent oversight to run smoothly. Note the key word "oversight", not "manage".

Fine, so each state can administrate education, healthcare, social security and the like on a state by state basis "reserved to the states"; or on a national level "to the people". Bush junior first election notwithstanding, the government is elected by the people and represents them. And if the people don't like it, they can elect another.

This is where the US and Europe differ. Throughout the EU and in a number of other countries e.g. Canada, healthcare is "available to all and free at the point of delivery". That is they have National Health Services which goes a lot further than Medicare.

There aren't many that would have it different, either.

(Perhaps a new thread should be started here. This has little to do with the title of the thread).

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The senate in the US is not an aristocracy - it is a legislative body elected by the people. Big difference.

I don't think that "people" equals "government". However - speaking as a non-American with considerable admiration for the US constitution - I'd like to ask a question: how can "the people" exercise powers except by forming a government at some level? Most power can not realistically be exercised by a large number of individual decisions: the result would be chaos.