"If the market doesn't like Obama, after a whole long month in office, is that his fault? Or the market's? "

The market is largely reflective of fear and greed. You can say Obama has apparently reduced greed- if that makes you feel better.

But I would say it has little to do with Obama or Bush.
But either Bush or Obama can/could have made it worse or better.

I would say a more fundamental aspect is cheap foreign products and oil- with oil being more significant.

I would say it makes sense to take advantage of cheap foreign products and/or oil, but if you couple this with discouraging domestic markets of oil and cheap products, and thereby amplifying the affect. One obviously gets dramatic results.

And generally there is obviously something fundamentally wrong when one has a situation where some business is considered too big to fail. One shouldn't have a situation where businesses are too big to fail. For the private sector to work [in comparison to socialism] business must be able to be "allowed" go bankrupt and get replaced.

Take for instance Microsoft. It could be allowed to fail- it's not "too big to fail"- and therefore it's large portion of market share, isn't as much of a "monopolistic problem".

But when you have businesses in which can't fail, you have the real problems associated with a monopolies. And you have a situation which will *require* govt involvement.

Personally I see little difference between a govt takeover of a business compared to the business involved being too big to fail. And if the govt takeover does not result in that business being made so it can fail, govt might as well continue to run it. Because there is little difference and because it's only a matter of time before the govt will need to take it over again.

Now, if you want to blame people, it's the people who think having large financial institutions help provide stability. It *might be* cheaper to operate, but it doesn't add stability to the market- just stability for it's management.

The other issue is that whether something is actually to big to fail or whether this is merely what is erroneously supposed or said.
I think we need to be given a list of companies "too big to fail" by these same people who now think they know- Before the crisis inevitably occurs.