> < Most of our current economic woes are not the result of free market
> run
> amok
> but rather government intervention and fiscal promiscuity ran amok.
> This is
> not the same as saying regulation is bad... just that too much of the
> wrong
> kind can bring disaster, and I think what's happening now is an
> illustration
> of this point.>
>
> I hope you are aware that almost nobody believes that.
I hope you are aware that lots of people believe it. Just because you don't
doesn't mean nobody does.
> The lack of
> regulation is generally ackcnowledged as the cause of this problem.
Again, you never listen. Why bother?
Lack of regulation of WHAT caused "it"? It's not enough to say "Lack of
regulation".
In this case it was a failure to regulate the GSEs. They're the proximate
cause of the mortgage meltdown, and the failure to regulate THEM, and the
cottage industry of hedge funds that were built atop the mortgage backed
securities of these GSEs, has been falsely put at the feet of Republicans,
who did try to regulate them, but the very Dems now running the show
prevented it.
I'm merely trying to expand your understanding of the truth of that
statement.
Knowing what anybody watching the news can know, it's hard to take a tax
cheat like Timothy Geithner, who presided over this very failure as the head
of the New York Regional Fed, as our new Treasure Secretary. It boggles the
mind that Obama picked him, and stuck with him through his Turbo Tax woes,
insisted he's the one guy who understood everything, etc.
It's hard to look at what Obama is doing with the stimulus as anything but a
Bush On Steroids plan. Did you forget the $400 billion prescription drug
"stimulus" bill of Bush (might as well call that 'stimulus' it's the same
thing---everything is stimulus the way Bush and Obama saw the Treasury)?
Well add that and the wars and they don't begin to compare to the stimulus
plus TARP 2.0 plus the coming $400 billion omnibus bill. If Bush was
irresponsible, words fail for what Obama's doing.
What's unbalanced about noting these facts?
I do go several steps further to ask questions about the circumstances of
the collapse, which I think are fair game even if everyone else is casually
incurious about it. I also look at the players and see how they line up and
begin to wonder whether the official story is the whole story. Whatever in
the world is wrong with that?
Just today I linked to an article that demonstrated how Reuters quietly
censored what the Chinese finance guy said ("we hate you guys") and you want
to tell me I should just go by what the official news sources and
conventional wisdom around that say? No thanks.
Your problem is you don't like anything but conventional wisdom. If you
detect it's outside that realm, you just attack it as insane. You don't
actually try to understand the other person's point of view.
- Bob
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
