This has been one of my favorite pieces for a while now.

I often tell people if they want to know what's going in in America philosophically, read Atlas Shrugged; if they want to know how the specifics are playing out, read "The Codevilla."

I read most of the rest of the article, and I categorically reject the author's understanding of science, authority, and modern politics. He's totally on the right track, though, in defining the problem at the beginning.

This article is interesting. The book Too Big to Fail attempts to get in the head's or at least backroom's of the architects of the banking bailout. My impression is those bankers and govt officials truly believed that the banking industry held the economy together. They take all the monies in our bank accounts, they think, and allocate them to worthy projects, making the modern world possible.

Although I agree banking is important to the economy, I reject their view that they were holding the world together. If they had failed, I believe similar institutions to allocate capital would spring up to fill that need.

The article says people (including me) did not want to bail out the financial industry. The people in charge, however, followed the suggestion of the banking industry rather than the people. This may have been responsible for OWS and the Tea Party-- this perception that politicians are dolling out money to politically connected donors against the wishes of the people.

Since the TARP program worked and didn't end up costing much, though, maybe the elites were right and people were wrong to some extent. It's certainly not that simple, and even if it is, the problems of money in politics and rent seeking are very real.

Thanks for posting it.