On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Sean Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Definitely true: e.g. > http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2008/10/what-now-contro.html > > I got the cite for the Liebowitz piece from this blog and they have > been incredibly active the last two weeks. Evidently, one of the > authors on the blog also got a link from Stossel on Townhall last week > for his "Open Letter to my friends on the left," which basically > repeats the talking points David has down pat. All can be found by > scrolling down the main page.
Very interesting. The blog you linked to seems like a mirror image of PEN-L. For e.g. in this paragraph every single sentence is probably the exact opposite of the majority opinion on PEN-L: It is imperative that we continue to point out that this crisis was caused by a whole host of government interventions, from the Fed to the GSEs to the CRA to land-use regulations and so on. We need to constantly argue that this was not the result of "free markets" or "deregulation." It's also worth noting that the one bit of deregulation that did take place in recent years (the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall) has been key to avoiding a worse disaster by allowing commercial banks to buy up investment banks and allowing the struggling investment banks to go commercial to keep themselves afloat. If this bailout becomes the disaster that many of us believe it will be, we need to make sure we pin the blame where it belongs. I think we can feel good about the fact that while extensive evidence has been produced in this PEN-L thread with links to numerous reports etc, nothing of the sort is to be found on the Austrian blog, which seems to rely entirely on apriori ideological conviction. -raghu. -- "To be or not to be. That's not really a question."
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
