At times like this, many of us begin to notice just how little we know about the inner workings of our nation’s economy.

Ask yourself if you really understand how to evaluate proposals made by politicians who claim their measures would protect “Main Street,” not just “Wall Street.”

Whatever comes out of the current efforts, we cannot know if they are successful for a long while. Stock market reactions can be significant in one direction one day, then reverse course the next.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have a group of politicians who could actually explain during the debates on the floor of Congress what they see as the problems and the solutions?

Instead, we seem to get little more than short statements about the existence of a financial crisis and the need to take action — accompanied by too many attempts to avoid blame and lay it on the opposition.

Here in Kitsap County, we have seen some of the effects of the financial system’s problems following the collapse of the “housing bubble.”

One bank ran into difficulties when the construction industry’s slump made the bank’s exposure to the risk of unpaid construction loans too high for comfort.

Many lending institutions here and elsewhere have had to increase the amounts they set aside to cover such risks, so there is less money available to lend to customers even when the institutions are not in trouble.

People who bought homes near the end of the rapid rise in prices now see their property values declining, rather than rising as they had expected.

Whenever the price of anything begins to fall, it is natural for buyers to delay purchasing when they can — waiting to see if prices will fall more in the near future.

The housing price declines of the recent past seem understandable now, since the previous rise appears to have been a classic “bubble” in which prices rose partly because buyers expected them to rise.

But how did the inner workings of our nation’s financial system affect our local housing prices? There had to be some effect, since we were not the only ones whose housing values were soaring.

Apparently, it was too easy for people to borrow the money needed to purchase homes.

Prices went up because demand went up, and demand rose because more people were able to get mortgages. Now, too many of the people who got mortgage loans cannot pay back the loans — and they cannot simply sell because their homes are no longer worth as much as they owe.

At least part of this problem occurred because of policies being followed nationwide. People could get mortgages without making down payments and without proving a sufficient and reliable source of income.

Many of the debtors who got these loans cannot pay, and their inability to pay has rippled through the entire financial system.

It seems that intervention in the markets by the federal government may be necessary to try to correct the problem caused by the government’s intervention in the home mortgage market.

Those nationwide policies that resulted in loans to people who weren’t likely to be able to pay were policies of the federal government.

Whether the rest of us knew it or not, our federal government — starting more than 10 years ago — put into effect policies that led to this mess.

The rationale seemed worthy. The policies were intended to increase the number of Americans who could own their homes rather than renting.

Indeed, when reform efforts were suggested during the previous administration and on more than one occasion during the current administration, that rationale was used to defeat attempts to avoid this mess.

We could blame almost anyone, but it would be a good idea to put all our mirrors in the closet before starting to look for someone to blame.

It’s obvious that not enough of us paid attention and leaned on our representatives to correct the policies before it was too late.

Since the general election is only a few weeks away and the existence of a problem is apparent to most voters, we don’t really need to concern ourselves with laying blame.

Our elected representatives and their opponents will undoubtedly handle that part for us.

We must learn enough to evaluate what they do while they supposedly act in our best interests. It’s more than a matter of deciding who gets our votes — we have to figure out how to put up with what they do in case they again get it all wrong.

We should not expect guarantees that this mess will be straightened out without sending us the bill. Our government wouldn’t be intervening in the markets if such a thing could be promised by anyone.

But we should demand explanations of what they are doing and why they think it is best.

Robert Meadows is a

Port Orchard resident.