On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Nick Arnett <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 1:08 PM, John Williams <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> > Interesting that you chose not to quote the paragraph that describes his >> > opinion of the "heart of the financial crisis." >> >> It seems to have been summarized by the part I excerpted, which was >> Taylor's conclusion. > > Oh, come on. When somebody says that "X" is the heart of the problem, > that's not subject to your interpretation. The paragraph you chose was just > the one that supported your argument best
How about when someone writes an article, and at the end puts a heading "Conclusion"? What is your interpretation of that? Taylor also wrote a similar paper to the one I referenced, but unfortunately the full-text of the article is not available online, as far as I can tell. But it has an abstract he wrote, and so should settle this silly argument over what Taylor considered most important: ECONOMIC POLICY AND THE FINANCIAL CRISIS: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF WHAT WENT WRONG John B. Taylor | ABSTRACT: The financial crisis was in large part caused, prolonged, | and worsened by a series of government actions and interventions. The | housing boom and bust that precipitated the crisis were enabled | by extraordinarily loose monetary policy. After the housing | boom came to an end, the Federal Reserve misdiagnosed financial | markets’ uncertainty about the location and value of risky subprime | mortgagebacked securities as being, instead, a liquidity problem, and | it took inappropriate compensatory actions that had side effects that | included raising the price of oil. Finally, in mid-September 2008, | the government’s ad-hoc bailouts, and the unpredictable terms of | the proposed TARP legislation, appear to have caused a sharp spike in | uncertainty in the financial markets. > Never bet that people here won't > go look at the sources you cite. Or that we're stupid. Huh? I provided the links so that anyone interested could read the entire article. > He didn't need to write it, any more than he needed to write that the sky is > blue. He was describing the behavior that was illegal for decades. Is that your way of saying that you do not have a reference to cite about your claim? _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
