I think the democrats are shifting the blame. The law makers have a duty to make sure that people behave in a civilised manner. If you create an environment where people can panic in a crowded theatre (by analogy the people are the market) don't blame the people - that's what people do. You need to have stopped the panic occurring in the first place.
The democrats favour these hybrid corporations (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) that get a blank cheque from government when it all goes wrong. The only reason why they did it was to appeal to their demographic of subprime voters (referring to the 2003 proposed regulation of said corps). Now they are cynically trying to shift the blame on the free-market system where they created the conditions that allowed the panic in the theatre to start. They are forever talking about the character of the republicans but one needs to look at the character of the left: a motley crew of the self-loathing, anarchists, vandals, control freaks, low standards, low achievement, anti-patriotic scumbags. Why else can they be rubbing their hands with glee as the system collapses? It's the demented laughter of the arsonist admiring their work from a hill as they watch a hanger of expensive cars go up in flames. You know, they destroy what they are incapable of doing themselves (generating wealth, having talent). The birds of a feather are really flocking together... This patient is really sick and has deep issues... -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 September 2008 23:17 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >I heard on TV last night that the level of private debt in the US is >$41 trillion. Imagine what is going to happen if the banks start calling in >*all* their loans. Precisely. That's what people like Warren Buffett are worried about. They are not concerned about the fate of highroller Wall Street investors. Buffett has expressed contempt for such people many times. I have no idea if that $41 trillion figure is accurate or not. I have heard various estimates. I think a large part of the problem is that no one has any idea what the true number is, or who owes what to whom for what property. As OrionWorks says, more transparency is essential. I read the other day a proposal that publicly traded corporations should be compelled to keep all of their financial books on the Internet. I wonder if something like that could be done with banks as well. That is, with any bank that is federally insured. The ones that are not should be allowed to collapse as far as I am concerned . . . although I suppose they are the ones who hold $41 trillion in debt -- I wouldn't know. Although I know next to nothing about this, along with everyone else I am getting a quick education from the newspapers. I get the distinct impression that the so-called experts at banks and insurance companies and the Federal Reserve are a bunch of blundering amateurs. They know much less than they thought they did, or that I assumed they did. The mistakes they have made -- such as not checking collateral -- seem elementary to me. A pair of British comedians summarized the situation better than most financial experts I have read, "Bird and Fortune - Subprime Crisis." See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g Sometimes experts turn out to be real experts -- people you can rely on. This is usually the case with engineering and other well-defined disciplines. Sometimes we find they are expert at all. We have seen this in cold fusion and other narrow scientific disciplines, multidisciplinary studies, and situations in which few people are aware of the facts, and few people have done their homework. It would be very surprising if experts in plasma fusion were wrong, because that subject has been widely studied and many textbooks and papers have been written about it. It is less surprising that people like Huizenga who appointed themselves experts in cold fusion a week after March 23, 1989 turned out to be wrong. - Jed
