I am not an economist, that's for sure. As a matter of fact, I am pretty ignorant on the subject. However, considering the recent government officials' rush to inject taxpayers' money into failing businesses and banks, it seems that I am not the only one.

Is the government's way of attempting to save the economy the right way? Should taxpayers be bailing out failing and unhealthy companies, which ultimately could drag the economy into an even deeper recession? I have my doubts. But if the “;macro brains”; that are in control of the public purse insist that the way they are doing it is the right way, before they hand out our money, shouldn't they at least take some elementary precautions and make sure that they are not simply throwing taxpayers' money down the drain?

One precaution would be to get rid of the existing managers who are the principal cause of their companies' failures. Insist and make sure that companies are trimmed down to functional and competitive levels and eliminate excessive and unnecessary spending. Cap top management compensation to, say, no more than 10 times the average salary of a manager in their company. Eliminate obsolete and redundant products that consumers don't want anymore.

  Lawmakers should be savvy and prudent with taxpayers' money and make sure that it is invested wisely. Otherwise, some industries will continue to go from failure to failure with great enthusiasm at taxpayers' expense.

Businesses have been failing since time immemorial and for a variety of reasons: market saturation, management incompetence, poor quality products, excessive growth and out-of-control expenditures. Whatever the reasons, there will always be businesses that fail. Government can't save them all. In fact, President Reagan once said, “;The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'”;

Some people said the Big Three automakers shouldn't be allowed to fail. I think they should. The automotive industry needs an overhaul. You know, in forests, from time to time, nature ignites gigantic fires that get rid of old diseased trees and unhealthy undergrowth. When the fire is extinguished, from the ashes a new and healthier life always emerges.

They also say that the Fed should lower interest rates and keep injecting money into banks so they in turn will be liquid and keep lending to borrowers (or buy other failing banks.) But wasn't this the problem in the first place? Low interest rates, borrowers with no qualifications to repay the money, a merry-go-round in consumer spending for needless things and housing developments galore.

  All that said, the question might be: Why do banks have no liquidity? Perhaps because people don't put savings into banks anymore. Why? Because low interest rates give little or no return.

So we create this false economy. Everyone is encouraged to spend, spend and spend. Buy what you don't need or can't afford. With this type of strategy, temporary jobs are created, a few people become billionaires, the economy gives the illusion of moving and then ... bang! the bubble bursts.

Shouldn't banks go back to the old basic and encourage people to save by giving them decent interest rates for their money? Higher rates would be a natural filter to separate qualified from unqualified borrowers, banks would have more liquidity and government wouldn't have to continuously print what could soon become worthless money.