On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 12:22 PM, John Williams <jwilliams4...@gmail.com>wrote > > > > You are implicitly making a prediction -- that the consequences would > have been "the worst" if there were no immediate government > intervention. I have seen no evidence of the accuracy of your > predictions, in fact, I have seen evidence of the unreliability of > them. So I must discount your implicit prediction.
What predictions of mine have been unreliable? If you mean predicting the kind of arguments you'll make, I think I have scored 100 percent on the positive side. > One of a doctor's fundamental guidelines is "do no harm". A > responsible doctor would never operate on a patient to remove the > appendix simply because the patient complains of a stomach ache. More > information about the state of the patient is needed before an > operation is justified. So, you're saying that Bernanke, etc., didn't have enough information to make the decisions they made? They should have taken advantage of further diagnostic techniques? Such as? Perhaps you are familiar with the existence of exploratory surgery? I can assure you, from my own experience and expertise, that you that you chose one of the very hardest differential diagnoses that is routinely made in emergency rooms, where the consequences of a mistake can be peritonitis, which is often fatal. In other words, a good analogy for the economy, where it often can be very hard to really know what's wrong until you begin very invasive treatment, but if you want, the patient has a reasonable chance of going downhill rapidly. Nick
_______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
