Were the banks saved or were the bankers saved? From the numbers of banks who still have “toxic assets” on their books and are believed to be insolvent, I'd say the latter.

the rule of law was suspended years ago and has yet to be reinstated. it seems the change we sought cannot be believed in. laws seem intended to keep the general population in check and are inapplicable to the thieves and charlatans running [ruining?] what's left of our once great nation. class warfare in the form of wealth transfer is ongoing, pernicious and ominous. instead of trickle-down economics we've been thrashed with an upwards gush … the lawyers, the banksters, the democrats and the republicans have squeezed and squeezed and squeezed. the turnips are bled white. in the place of the fourth estate we have corporate-owned and operated media outlets telling us how well off we are while our fiat currency struggles to retain a mere five percent of its value since the central bank came into existence.

hat tip to you, sir.

Macroeconomics seems solidly planted in its “philosophical” stage, where it's trying to figure out how things work by looking at the past. But since it really can't make isolated experiments, it's not a science, at least, not yet.

For instance, I've heard from many sources, that Keynesian economics (a “stimulus plan”) has consistently failed everywhere that it's been tried. Part of the reason that I've come to loath both current political parties, is that they keep building on, expanding, and reusing, failures of the past.