I think it's really important to make it clear that they (well, specifically bailouts really) are also not ideas of the opposing bogeymen, though. No one who even thinks of considering themselves socialist or, say, anarchist would ever say "Yeah, let's give a bunch more money to rich people!"
The tendency for power to accumulate into the hands of a few, who then manipulate the economy to their own ends, is a problem endemic to all social power structures. No system yet invented has proven immune to it merely through built-in assumptions of the model.
"The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. [...] Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them."
Nor has any political force yet emerged built on that premise of social power structures. Perhaps classial liberalism, georgism, distributism, and good old fashioned anarchy. Every existing political force along the spectrum simply tries to subvert the pyramid to its own purpose.
Interestingly enough, the US Constitution's much-abused 2nd amendment was targetted at precisely this problem - the founders were at least aware of the problem.
It's still too early to know if this is a sufficient safeguard. But things must be getting close - those Occupy Wall Street protests only needed to have a few hotter heads leading things, and we may have seen impromptu armies numbering in the thousands taking over corporate America. I don't know how the government would react to such an uprising.
Yes and no. While it's true that a purpose of the second amendment was to preserve the right to armed revolt, another purpose, articulated in the Federalist Papers, was to share (distribute and balance) the state's natural monopoly on the use of force with the people.
However, I had more in mind an ideological revolution transcending the tired left-right paradigm. In this matter, the right sees a centralized concentration of power in the government as a problem but fails to see the role that concentrated capital plays in controlling that political power, while the left sees a centralized concentration of power in the economy as a problem but fails to see the role that concentrated government plays in concentrating wealth. Little do both sides realize that both concentrations of power are one in the same.
I was actually thinking of the Federalist Papers justification when I wrote my comment ;) We're not talking about the people overthrowing the government, but rather reclaiming a share of the wealth which they can't get any other way, because the wealthy always ended up capturing the permanent power structures. It's worth noting that even with wealth these days being virtual (there are no massive vaults filled with gold in company HQs), there is still a physical aspect to accessing that wealth - someone that physically takes over the corporate headquarters of Walmart has access to systems that can distribute the wealth. Of course if you're just a bunch of bandits that does this, the government will pursue you to reclaim the money. But if you do it as part of a political movement with wide community support, politicians are much more likely to let it lie.
I think the 2nd Amendment is a "meta" amendment. It's a recognition that power tends to concentrate, and that to stop this some chaos needs to be maintained in the system.
The tendency for power to accumulate into the hands of a few, who then manipulate the economy to their own ends, is a problem endemic to all social power structures. No system yet invented has proven immune to it merely through built-in assumptions of the model.