Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, I say I'd go to astronomers, and astrophysicists, and aerospace
> engineers. And I'd find the best ones in the world.
Why haven't you?
> OK, your argument, just to be clear, is that you don't know anything about
> finance.
It is?
> You have no experience with financial markets. You don't know
> anything about me (so how do you know you shouldn't trust people like me?)
How many words have you written to the list today? Is every one of those a
misrepresentation of your views?
> You
> are aware of the overwhelming consensus of people who do have experience in
> finance, who have studied financial markets, and who (like me) have
> absolutely
> nothing to gain by exaggerating (or minimizing) the risks...
There are a large number of economists who think Paulson's $700B bailout
is a bad idea. That you have the cahones to claim that your viewpoint is an
overwhelming consensus of experts is a perfect example of the absurdity
of people like you actually being able to "fix" the "problem".
>(the same
> large group, it's worth noting, who caused this problem in the first place)
Politicians and people like you, yes.
> but, well, I'm a
> political scientist.
You don't say.
> I believe in _data_.
Me too.
> You _still_ haven't come up with a historical example. Not one.
Show me the data of the last three bail outs that I mentioned, and how
they averted disaster.
> You're talking about isolated bailouts of firms
Oh, so you mean that I haven't come up with one example that you like
and proves your point. So sorry.
> (and it's worth pointing out
> that, so far, the AIG bailout has worked - the markets have not collapsed,
Heh. I just saved the world, too. It was about to blow up, but I stopped it in
the nick of time.
> Even more so, you don't seem to understand what I've been saying, so let me
> try
> again.
Yes, that must be it. It couldn't be that you might not have a monopoly on the
truth.
> _My whole point_ is that we don't know what will happen. We know
> there's a chance of the next Great Depression. _We don't know_ what the odds
> of
> that happening are. Had the money markets collapsed, the odds were very high
> (in my opinion) but they haven't yet, so we just don't know. However, the
> best
> people in this field think that the odds remain uncertain but significant.
You are really good at that. Did you learn that in political science class? I
don't
know, but all the experts agree with me. So I must be right. It works even
better
when all the experts actually do agree with you, though.
> So I have two simple questions for you. What do you think the odds of such a
> collapse occurring are? 1% 5%? Whatever number you pick - what do you
> think
> should be done to lessen that risk? Nothing? If so, do you not buy health
> insurance?
You sure are dramatic. Why not wait and see what happens? If things turn out as
badly as you predict, surely your cadre of experts will be able to propose a
simple
solution in a few weeks or whatever. Oh but wait, then we might see that you
were crying wolf. Hard to get re-elected then.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
