I have no background in economics (heck, I don't even deal with my own household funds), but on the broader scale economics looks like aspects of game theory and topology (which I'm more comfortable with). Here are a couple of the aspects that I've been seeing that I'm finding troubling... With the number of these big banks shrinking, aren't we moving closer to a situation that our anti-trust laws are design to protect us from? With fewer and fewer banks, aren't we hearing that these banks are now so important that we can't afford to let them fail? Shouldn't that be alarming? The $700 Billion is designed to buy bad (or possibly bad) debt. The goal is to make it easier for banks to return to the loan practices that drive our economy. What makes anyone think that the banks will do this? What incentive do they have to re-loosen the purse strings even if they get this bailout? Isn't it more likely that they'll take this money and hunker down to ride out the recession? This bad (or possibly bad) debt we are buying, as it is now ours, doesn't it make sense to rework the loans so that we get paid back rather than getting stuck with property that is decreasing in value? Foreclosing on homes seems (from my perspective) to hurt the lender as much (if not more) than the borrower when housing prices are falling. Shouldn't the first thing we would want is to keep these people paying (even in smaller amounts) than to get stuck with property that is losing it's value and no one can afford to buy? Again, I know nothing about this stuff, but I'm not seeing anyone addressing these aspects of this. This isn't a political issue, I'm just wondering if anyone is taking these aspects into consideration.