----- Original Message ----
From: John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion <brin-l@mccmedia.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:15:33 AM
Subject: Re: Meltdown
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?
Me:
Well, I have. Or at least, I've read what they have to say. I even know who
they are. Do you?
John:
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".
Me:
Brilliant. You have paid such close attention to what I'm saying that you
manage to...come to an opinion on something about which I have expressed no
opinion. Remarkable. Actually, I don't think Paulson's bailout is a good
idea. Although the fact that you keep citing it as $700B suggests to me that
you don't understand it. I prefer Dodd's plan, which isn't perfect, but is
much better.
>(the same
> large group, it's worth noting, who caused this problem in the first place)
Politicians and people like you, yes.
Me:
Again, you know nothing about me, except that I'm taking the time to debate
with someone incapable of even ordinary civility. Which, to be fair, doesn't
speak well of constraints on my time. But I'm trying to procrastinate right
now.
> I believe in _data_.
Me too.
Me:
The data do not suggest that.
> 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.
Me:
It's not my job to educate you. It may amuse me, but it doesn't really do that
at the moment.
> _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.
Me:
OK, so, I've talked about basic financial market mechanics and pointed to works
by Kindelberger and Taleb. You have...talked about mystical properties of
markets. Hmm.
> 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.
Me:
Ah yes, because I'm definitely running for office right now. Come on, this is
just tiresome. At least try to have a simple discussion without accusing
everyone of bad faith. When you get cancer, you go to the oncologist. She
says, we need to do chemo now before it metastasizes. Your answer is, of
course...let's wait and see what happens. After it metastasizes surely you
"will be able to propose a simple solution..." Try that approach. Tell me how
it goes.
Gautam
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
