On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
> I think it's disingenuous to say that we had no idea what would have
> happened. Many more banks would have failed,
Yes, but that is not necessarily a cost. In many cases, I consider it a benefit.
> and the stock market
> would have crashe
Rob wrote:
> Is anyone else seeing medical related construction on this scale in their
> area?
Not here. They've actually closed a few hospitals around here even
though the population continues to increase. I guess Kaiser has built
a few hospitals, but nothing on the scale you're talking abou
John wrote:
> 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.
>
On 8/29/2009 10:10:54 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Rceeberger
> wrote:
>
> > If GM and Chrysler had gone out of business there would have been a wave
> of unemployment like we have never seen in our lifetime. There would have
> been no one
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
> If GM and Chrysler had gone out of business there would have been a wave of
> unemployment like we have never seen in our lifetime. There would have been
> no one to pick up all those unemployed in the short to medium term.
Or not. The system
On 8/29/2009 8:23:09 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > Or on the other hand, they did do a good job of it and people of your
> political stripe are >invested in pretending that they did nothing of any
> worth.
>
> Immense government debt, rapidly increasing with no end in sig
> Or on the other hand, they did do a good job of it and people of your
> political stripe are >invested in pretending that they did nothing of any
> worth.
Immense government debt, rapidly increasing with no end in sight, high
unemployment, and the many of the large financial companies that
cau
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Doug Pensinger 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 t
On 8/29/2009 6:17:25 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> My point was rather that Bernanke, and others like him, were invested
> in making the situation seem dire AND that unless there were swift and
> large government intervention, that the consequences would be
> inconceivabl
John wrote:
I wrote:
>
>> I have to go back to the burning building analogy.
>
> Which, as I already explained, is a useless analogy and not worth
> further comment.
Because it renders your whole speculative argument moot? Your so
called explanation was:
"It would also be silly to think the
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
> I have to go back to the burning building analogy.
Which, as I already explained, is a useless analogy and not worth
further comment.
> In any case, since you have no faith in economists, who would you have
> study the situation?
Everyone
John wrote:
> The point is, because of his actions, we do not know and cannot know.
> Considering the vast amounts of other people's money that he has spent
> and the great moral hazard that he has created, the responsible thing
> to have done would have been to have carefully studied the situati
Charlie wrote:
> Yes - it's the simple principle that not everyone is rational about
> everything in their lives. In Maher's case, he has a mammoth blind spot on
> biomedical science. I don't think it's irredemable in his case.
Did anyone see the show last night? He interviewed Jay-Z and Bill
M
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
> Or you could make it sound like the situation was overblown and
> convince people that they were just trying to make heroes of
> themselves.
The point is, because of his actions, we do not know and cannot know.
Considering the vast amounts
On 30/08/2009, at 7:03 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
I've got a question on Bill Maher and germ theory. In various non-
Rush
type forums (e.g. the atheist alliance) there were numerous
references to
his favoring of alternative medicines. The quotes I've gotten
(including
the Let
John wrote:
> So, it was a one-two punch. Make the situation sound unimaginably bad,
> and then persuade people that he saved them from disaster.
Or you could make it sound like the situation was overblown and
convince people that they were just trying to make heroes of
themselves.
I find it ext
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
> In your initial post in this thread, particularly in the last
> paragraph, you seemed to be belittling the idea that we are in the
> midst of a major economic crisis. That's what I was responding to.
> Perhaps I was mistaken.
I'm not sure
John wrote:
> And? Is there more to what you are saying?
>
In your initial post in this thread, particularly in the last
paragraph, you seemed to be belittling the idea that we are in the
midst of a major economic crisis. That's what I was responding to.
Perhaps I was mistaken.
In any case, I
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
> Apparently you not only misunderstand my point, you've lost track of
> the argument. I said "the vast majority of economists said that there
> was a huge problem" I'm pretty sure there was nothing in there about
> throwing money at the pro
I've got a question on Bill Maher and germ theory. In various non-Rush
type forums (e.g. the atheist alliance) there were numerous references to
his favoring of alternative medicines. The quotes I've gotten (including
the Letterman quote that his illness is due to being poisoned) are
consistent
John wrote:
> I think I understood your point. Mine was that economists are not
> really experts in any useful knowledge. They cannot predict the course
> of the economy any better than non-economists.
>
> Also, I dispute your claim that the vast majority of economist are in
> favor of throwing m
> From: John Williams
> It is interesting that what some people find rude
> does not seem rude to others. I suspect that a
> neutral observer would look at my posts during
> the last few weeks and judge that they are not at
> all rude. I have been asking some uncomfortable
> questions, but not
22 matches
Mail list logo
