That was my initial reaction too. But then I saw that the real problem is that they were gambling on derivatives to fund critical infrastructure projects. The obvious solution is more bailouts. The libertarian solution would be to let them 'stew in their own juices'. I suspect there is no 'right' answer because the people who created this disaster. can never repay the money, even if they wanted to.

The problem is that the people making the bad decisions and the people suffering for those decisions are not the same people.

The people suffering elected the people who made the bad decisions.

Of course the people they elected ran on detailed platform of how to use derivatives to fund infrastructure projects and those voters are very familiar with complex financial instruments!

I don't think it is asking too much to not elect people who will be bribed into screwing you over. At the community level candidate integrity should still be measurable. But the likely problem, given voter apathy, is not that they elected the losers, but that they sat by and allowed them to be elected.

I was in the UK when they had their lowedt voter turnout since World War 2. A couple of months later 9/11 happened and Tony Blair was leading the country into war. All of a sudden a lot of people who hadn't voted were saying "hang on... we're not sure we want this muppet in charge during wartime".

The problem is that not all elections are equally important, and it is easy for the voters to either (a) go to sleep at the wheel or (b) vote themselves more pork.

Did you notice that in the article

- There was 'a' person who self-reported he could not afford the water bill?

- That there were no data at all about who could or could not afford the bill?

- That the number of people now using outhouses in that county was said to be rising but no numbers were given?

It's called propaganda. You fell for it, hook, line, sinker, and part of the dock.