On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Doug Pensinger<brig...@zo.com> wrote: > Because it renders your whole speculative argument moot?
No, because it is a useless analogy. Why not talk about the actual situation instead? > Your so > called explanation was: No, that was a summation, not my explanation. > So we are to assume on your say so that economic emergencies do not exist? Why would you do that? > Now there is a useless answer. How is this everyone who wishes to > supposed to do anything about the situation if and when they figure > out what to do? We were not talking about doing anything, as you pointed out to me before. We were talking about the extent of the problem. You seem to be worried about damage that might have happened if the government had not intervened without allowing enough time for the situation to play out and be well understood. I do not deny that it is possible that there could be some cost from not intervening swiftly. But my point is that we do not know what that cost is, because it was never observed, and predictions of economists in these sorts of situations are unreliable. In contrast, we know very well the vast costs of the government intervention. Many hundreds of billions of dollars spent, trillions of dollars pledged, and a huge moral hazard that will make such problems more likely to occur in the future. So we have a vast cost, and we have no idea what the benefits were that were bought with that cost. I, for one, demand more proof that my money is being used wisely. _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
