On 1) True On 2) Mostly ture. On 3.1) Huh? A real economist doesn't see the economic fallout from the bankruptcy of auto companies? These auto companies 1) empl

On 1) True On 2) Mostly ture. On 3.1) Huh? A real economist doesn't see the economic fallout from the bankruptcy of auto companies? These auto companies 1) employed hundreds of thousands of people directly 2) have hundreds of supplier companies which rely on them for for billions of dollars in receipts 3) Supply otherwise healthy auto companies (a fact made clear by Ford, Toyota and Honda at the time) It's possible you're more focused on capital and risk than actual assets, which is unsurprising, because that's why 2008 happened in the first place. Perhaps you believe errantly, (or maybe you choose to ignore, as Mitt Romney did), that during one of the worst recessions and liquidity crisis in modern American history, that they would have gotten funding from an equity company? The auto bailout was about stopping the freefall. It was common sense. Markets fail. Look at the history before the Fed. Look at how people starved to death in Russia because of rigid adherence to free market principals. If they had taken a more balanced approach, markets would be freer today. On 3.2) True. On 4) Capital does not erode the position of labor. It has nothing to do with it at all. It is an estimate of labors worth. Simple supply and demand. The policies of a nation (globalization, unionization), technology, are the levers which cause supply of labor to fall or rise. Capital might make it easier to exchange labor, but that's about it.