Comments on: A Fine Mess

By: xstryker

xstryker — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:35:51 +0000

Greenspan was not the problem nor is freedom.

What’s hilarious is how conservatives can talk about freedom at all. To a conservative, freedom means you can lie to your customers but the government tells you who you can marry and listens to your phone calls. Conservative freedom is “freedom for us to do what we want, not freedom for you to do what you want.” Of course, pure economic conservatives like Greenspan will cling to their uncle Milton and aunt Ayn while their theories crumble with the economy around them. So, David, what do you make of Greenspan’s admission of mistake?

Greenspan, 82, acknowledged under questioning that he had made a “mistake” in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest, would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and institutions. Greenspan called that “a flaw in the model … that defines how the world works.”

Don’t you think there’s a reason why the SEC exists?

By: cassandra_m

cassandra_m — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:25:40 +0000

Here we go with the discredited Fannie and Freddie nonsense again.

By: David

David — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:07:09 +0000

Not bad, it is incomplete, but it is a post not a book. It misses Fannie and Freddie. It misses the energy component. It leaves out our need to have a 21st century tax code. It misses the monkeying with commodity rules. Greenspan was not the problem nor is freedom.

This is the best post of the year on this site. It was insightful and thought out. I may start reading this site more.

By: The Economy - A Fine Mess « Election Inspection

The Economy - A Fine Mess « Election Inspection — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:00:12 +0000

[...] Posted in analysis tagged economy at 11:00 am by xstryker Cross-posted at Delaware Liberal [...]

By: Unstable Isotope

Unstable Isotope — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:05:59 +0000

Yes, I would definitely prefer a pragmatist to an ideologue. Any one that is doing a good job now would be a good choice. A Republican is fine with me as long as she/he will follow the economic policy set forth by the administration and do their best to make it work and change it where it needs to be changed.

By: anon

anon — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:59:53 +0000

She’s a moderate Republican (pro-choice)

A little OT, but… in the future I think being pro-choice doesn’t buy you “moderate” credentials anymore.

If you want to be a moderate Republican now, you have to vote for some tax increases and some social spending where it makes sense.

By: cassandra m

cassandra m — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:51:19 +0000

Bair has also been working on a mechanism to unwind and to reset mortgages that can reasonably be saved, apparently using loans mad by IndyMac as a test bed. This was smart, practical thinking (vs. simply adhering to some ideology) to at least try to see what could be done with a bank that the FDIC took over.

The really interesting thing to think about is what the American Economy will look like when we get to the other side of this mess. Everyone is working at deleveraging (consumers, investors and businesses) — will we be so quick to go out on a credit limb after this? Or — how may iPod generations can you skip before you have to get a new one?

Great post, xstryker!

By: X Stryker

X Stryker — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:11:50 +0000

Believe it or not, Sheila Bair at the FDIC is my choice for Treasury Secretary. She’s a moderate Republican (pro-choice), but she’s strongly in favor of tighter banking regulations. She’d be a practical, pragmatic choice – more of a doer than a philosopher. After ideologues like Greenspan who hold to dry principles until they catastrophically blow up in our face, we could use some people who appreciate, as Krugman might say, things that “work great in practice but never work in theory”.

By: Unstable Isotope

Unstable Isotope — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:10:58 +0000

Great post. Yes, this is a systemic failure and that’s why we need an overhaul of the whole system. I think a big issue is who do we get to overhaul the system? Most of the experts we have came through this broken system, do we trust them to do the right thing?

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:04:59 +0000

I’ve been hearing that the “junk” got multiplied by a factor of at least ten and that’s why this thing keeps rolling and getting worse and worse. I didn’t understand that aspect until you just explained it. How much fraud has been perpetrated on the world? A whole, whole lot. I don’t see why these guys aren’t all up on charges. It’s nothing but a huge pyramid scheme.

Thanks stryker!

By: xstryker

xstryker — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:58:52 +0000

Jason – the checks did as much as they could – but they did nothing to address the actual problem with the banks, which was getting worse. They should have addressed that first and then sent people stimulus checks.

By: pandora

pandora — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:30:40 +0000

Sorry, I keep hearing it’s all Fannie and Freddie’s fault – and those poor black and brown people! Rich people and big business were just victims.

Nice post, X. Now please stop raising the bar!

By: jason330

jason330 — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:48:03 +0000

Given items 1 through 16 – it is a wonder that the $500.00 stimulus checks didn’t work.

Maybe if they had been for $600.00…?

By: xstryker

xstryker — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:12:52 +0000

There, I added a bedtime music video.

By: xstryker

xstryker — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 04:59:01 +0000

I think the real question is how Phil Gramm, Alan Greenspan, and George W. Bush can sleep after that. Or even look themselves in the mirror.