Money is strange stuff. Like a prostitute it can be
both desirable and repellent at the same time. It is
most appealing and desirable when you need it. Most
disgusting when others have it in abundance. To
extend the analogy our financial institutions have
been cheating on us. IS giving them vast sums the way
to correct this? If it averts a disaster, probably
yes. A dollar spent will be spent again repeatedly
and thus we have the value of money. It facilitates
trade ad infinitum. Note that the article says that
most of this bail out money will be recovered by
government. It was and is an investment in avoiding a
total breakdown of the international economy.

The economy of the 21st century is vast and
interdependent. In the 19th century economy was more
personal and a family could be secure on a few acres,
producing enough to meet their needs and a bit extra
to trade for what they couldn’t produce themselves.
In those times small government was enough. At this
point in time life has become to complex to run
unfettered. Change has been accelerating, the faster
it goes the harder it is to control.

In the BBC article this particularly caught my eye - “This extra government debt will have to be paid by future taxpayers, whose ability to spend money on government services like health and education will be constrained.”

True American conservatism/republicanism/capitalism, forget the crazies, has for decades been dedicated to removing the government from all social programs - its sole remaining responsibility being national defense and spreading capitalism (posing as democracy) world-wide.  The most efficient way to do this is to starve government involvement in social programs out of existence and that’s done by not being able to fund them.

Am I suggesting that this latest economic down-turn was engineered?  Not necessarily, but it certainly is convenient if starving the government is your bag.