Title: ORourke1 Signature
The signal to campaign contribution ratio was unbelievable.

David
 

"A pleasant natural environment is a good - a luxury good, philosophical good, a moral goody-good, a good time for all. Whatever, we want it. If we want something, we should pay for it, with our labor or our cash. We shouldn't beg it, steal it, sit around wishing for it, or euchre the government into taking it by force."--P. J. O’Rourke

On 4/7/2010 3:15 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
HI Billy,

Overall a probably fair indictment, but it did raise a question I've wondered about:

On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:

He gave political support to the Bush tax cut in 2001 because -- get this -- unless the government reduced taxes, there would be no more Treasuries for the Fed to buy to conduct monetary policy! He refused to raise margin requirements in the late 1990s to defuse the technology stock bubble, arguing publicly it would have no effect. (Privately, he acknowledged it would curtail the bubble but might nail the economy in the process.) 

It certainly is true we could have avoided this whole bubble by clamping down on big banks and irrational lending.  BUT.... would that have just caused a similar economic crash earlier?

I think you can make a case that an earlier crash would have been a "normal" recession, versus a Great Depression.  And that Wall Street wouldn't have made trillions during those intervening years, and thus require plus-sized bailouts.

But,  I don't know anyone who's even asking that question.  In other words, was it really possible to have brought the economy in for a soft landing, or was as crash like this more-or-less inevitable, and the best we could have done is to deliberately precipitate it?

If the latter is the case, then I have a bit more sympathy for politicos who've blinked.  Of course, if there was a way to have stopped the excesses *before* they became a structural problem, then that would've been much better. But how early would that intervention had to have taken place -- 2001? 2005?  And did anyone *else* see the problem way back then?

That's the one caveat I have with all those (admittedly much-deserved!) blame-flinging.  Would the earlier cure have been as painful as our current disease, when would it have to have been implemented, and who truly knew back then?

To be sure, I do agree that there *were* valid warning signs that were deliberately ignored.  I just don't know if the signal to noise was very high, and thus whether the crime was ignoring a strong signal or failing to pay sufficient attention to a weak one.  Which is an important distinction if one is trying to redesign the system as a whole to behave better, rather than just vilifying individuals.

Ernie P.

-- Ernie P.






_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/



_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/

Reply via email to