Yes. Agreed. But it's the Business aspect of this and his inability to understand that that I question. We have seen this before with government bailouts.

It seems like the idea is that if every American owns a piece of the pie so to speak, then we actually get something from bailing these companies out or rather insuring them with our tax dollars.

But what he can't seem to see is that this is exactly what businesses would want if they know they exist in a bubble.

We accuse a lot of politicians of being on the take, or invested in businesses that are a conflict of interest, and I think that assumptions clouds our ability to really honestly look at their poor understanding of business and economics.

I have to assume he thinks that these companies will pay us back for the bailout. That's pretty much what happened (supposedly) with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Even though they didn't receive a loan and there wasn't really any language in the agreement that legally bound them to pay back the bailout. But really what happened is the government just took over these companies (via conservatorship), and so even though the bailout has been ended, we haven't really gotten our money back, the damage goes very far beyond the monetary bailout, and the housing market is worse than ever. The loan market is worse than ever.

So what I'm saying is, the terrible business acumen/literacy of politicians combined with the vast majority of them using elected office to further enrich themselves is often overshadowed by how tech literate they are and one of those things is far more dangerous in the long term. Because most young people might be tech literate to some degree but they aren't business savvy by and large so electing younger officials doesn't solve this problem.

Bernie doesn't have to be tech literate. But he should at the very least have the pattern recognition to put two and two together and see that this isn't the first time.