> If the majority of people weren't so politically indifferent, there would be a higher probability of change. I think of it as temporal theft. The theft bein

> If the majority of people weren't so politically indifferent, there would be a higher probability of change. I think of it as temporal theft. The theft being private losses socialized via bailouts, govt deficits to prop the economy, and QE. It occurred at time t, but the loss isn't felt till t+n, so there's a lag during which most people grumble but mostly are indifferent. t+n will be when either: 1. Prices begin to hyperinflate commensurate with the multiple rounds of Federal Reserve QE. This could happen if Bernanke, Krugman, et all turn out to be wrong about the ability to hyperinflate the currency into a liquidity trap without commensurate price rises, then contract the money supply again as the economy emerges from the liquidity trap, thereby avoiding price hyperinflation. It could also happen if their exit strategy is wrong. 2. Foreign governments stop buying US debt en mass, forcing higher interest rates to entice buyers (or more Fed buying, further increasing money supply, see #1), leading to a slowdown and recession or depression. 3. Despite the Fed's best efforts to the contrary, a deflationary debt collapse domino effect happens anyway, possibly started by the European PIIGS taking the Icelandic route and defaulting on their debt to private banks, and ending with US states doing the same thing, leading to another recession or depression. Most unlikely scenario. There's nothing free in this world, and those losses are going to paid for by someone, one way or another. The financial system has already ensured it won't be them. When it happens the majority of people won't be so indifferent anymore.