Sabri, > I thought so, too. That letter was used today at the White House > meeting by the Republican Senator Shelby. I watched it on CNBC. The > below article reports this.
I don't recognize many of the names. But the few I recognize seem like middle-of-the-road, not very ideological, technically proficient economists. There's no Gary Becker, no Robert Barro, no easily recognizable market fundamentalist in the group. It clearly says: "The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise." I'd kind of agree with that. I see a hyper-bubble in the broker/dealer arms of investment banks, hedge funds, etc. and a substantially smaller bubble in the rest of the credit markets. It seems to me, by looking at the charts that Hyun Shin used to introduce the panel discussion at Princeton the other day, that Paulson's rescue plan as initially proposed was intended to help a segment of the credit markets that could easily go to hell in a rocket without the real economy suffering a significant damage, provided of course that the government uses regulation as well as traditional fiscal and monetary policy tools to keep regular credit for businesses and households flowing, something that from a distance doesn't seem as expensive to me. Correct me if I'm wrong. These are Shin's charts: http://econ.princeton.edu/news/Crisis%20on%20Wall%20Street.pdf Isn't it kind of strange that Shelby (http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=53266) uses their protest letter? _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
