It was one thing for the gambling addicts who stand around the CNBC water cooler to preach the gospel of Shock Doctrine capitalism when we were talking, oh I don't know, Argentina or Chile.  Tax cuts, forced privatization, cuts to social spending and public services, deregulation and letting the free market be the ultimate arbiter all sound like a great idea when you're talking about somebody else, and you're the ones sweeping in and reaping the benefits with vulture capitalism.

But what happens when you're on the receiving end? Can you still pontificate with this quasi-religious bullshit when the markets are tanking you're the one taking the huge hit in the interest of a "clean slate"?

"Twenty-two, twenty-two, come on back to me, come on back to me!"

That seems to be the horns of the dilemma that the high priests of Wall Street are twisting upon at the moment.  This morning the Dow is up by 300 points as a result of the Citigroup bailout, and they're all giddy as hell.  But Saturday it was quite a different matter when Ben Stein talked to Neil Cavuto:

Stein: You are doing the classic post hoc ergo prop drop fallacy. You may as well say because there was a World Series, the market dropped 4000 points. The Federal government has to stabilize this economy.

Cavuto: No it doesn't, Ben. No, no, and by the way, we were pre-hocking on this ...

Stein: The Federal government is the only one that can stabilize this economy.

Cavuto: It is a slippery slope Ben...

Stein: Then otherwise we fall into a great depression. Maybe not a problem for you, but a problem for everybody else.

I've seen more reasonable conversations held between coke fiends fighting over the last line at 6am.

"Say it! Say it! Say 'I lost the nest-egg.' Go on, say it! "

In these dark times, it's comforting to know that someone will always be saving them a seat.