< Lack of regulation of WHAT caused "it"? It's not enough to say "Lack of regulation".>
I thought I would write a RESPONSE and not a TREATISE. Perhaps you could try the same. Bottom line tho is that a failure of CORRECT REGULATION (happy now?) is the cause and is acknowledged by the vast majority. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob Calco Sent: Monday, 16 February 2009 3:39 PM To: 'ProFox Email List' Subject: RE: [OT] Federal Obligations Exceed World GDP > < 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 [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ 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.
