September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Netflix this one | Main | Record setting »

Mar 27, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I sure am glad Bachmann is manning the barricades. Us poor serfs would be helpless without warriors like her.

"Foreign correspondent"? What the hell?


It was a nice vacation. Nice to see nothing's


"an orderly revolution -- where the people of this country wake up get up and make a decision that this is not going to happen on their watch." -- Bachmann

It may be to Bachmann's chagrin, but we just did that.


Incomplete list of Cuomo targets from NYT article:
Ratings agencies
UBS & other banks on auction rate securities

The targets Cramer was ranting on - WaMu & Fannie Mae - [Cramer] saying we shouldn't look into their practices more closely. CP are you saying we shouldn't have listened to Cuomo and investigated then?

As Atrios says, there were two sides to the housing bubble - the ones saying there was a bubble and lending standards were atrocious, and the ones saying it was OK. Cramer saying lending should have been loosened in 2007 is the Duke brothers screaming 'turn those machines back on'.

There are two sides to the investigation/regulation debate today, and it would not be smart to ignore people's track records in their prescriptions for future policy.


I think they should just say "Social Democrats". At least admit that much, and then when most Americans ask what that means and ultimately reject it, they can move on to the next name to disguise who they really are and what they stand for.

It doesn't have to be actual socialism, social democracy is still too far to the Left for the majority of Americans to accept.


@WS gator

"[Cramer] saying we shouldn't look into their practices more closely. CP are you saying we shouldn't have listened to Cuomo and investigated then?"

Gator, it tickles me how you interpret anything anyone says through the filter of pure economic analysis. I wasn’t saying anything about Cuomo or Cramer or making any economic point whatsoever.

I don’t know how many more ways I can say this. I’ve been away from this blog for nearly 2 weeks, come back and what’s the first thing I see? All those margueritas later I just have to shake my head to find that y’all are still talking about this guy. You are equal parts dismissive him as a clownish buffoon and obsessive over him presumably for some dangerous importance you continue to see in him. It just seems like such a nonproductive, pissy and pointless exercise from bright people who seem to be sincerely seeking solutions to problems.

I understand the points that have been made about him but I think everybody got it the first dozen or so times. Does each kick in the ribs make a separate distinctive point from the others? Can’t you just say the guy was an idiot, that people who listened to him are paying the price for it, and move on?

Do y’all still see him as a clear and present danger to our economy? Don’t you have more important players to keep an eye on? Or, at least, having chronicled his every utterance up until now, how about at this point focusing your fascination with him to things he does or says in 2009 and beyond? Or is it just too much easier through the rearview?

This blog's host never forgets nor lets anyone else forget any of his villains’ flaws or failings. He’s really, really consistent and reliable in that regard. He doesn’t need an echo. That would be my only point to you.


"the Duke brothers screaming 'turn those machines back on'."
NOW your talking economics on a level I can understand! Are you bullish on pork bellies at the moment?

"Let's kick some ass"
Winthorp to Billy Ray Valentine--men's room, NYSE


"This blog's host never forgets nor lets anyone else forget any of his villains’ flaws or failings"

Just don't point out the flaws of his heroes or his own flaws because he quickly turns into a smart ass and gets nasty, which causes you to return the favor resulting in a feud that could go on for years because he will never concede anything. That self assured and stuck in his own ideology is the man.


"...he will never concede anything."

Hey, now that you mention it...

Dave Ribar

Sam: "which causes you to return the favor."

Good God man, grow up and take responsibility for your own actions. Sometimes I really feel sorry for you.


I notice you did not deny that Ed is a "smart ass and gets nasty" because you know it's true. What else is true is that every time I have declared a truce with Mr. Cone, he is always the first one to go right back to being a smart ass. But yet you ignore that and instead chastise those who respond to him in the same manner.

Again, I don't understand the constant defense of Ed Cone. I hear gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, but bigamy is still against the law so you all may need to choose who gets to be Ed's bride.

Dave Ribar


And I notice that you still haven't grown up and accepted responsibility for your own actions.

BTW, I don't see an intervening response from Ed. Was it your expectation of him writing something nasty and being a smart ass that "caused you" to respond as you did? Or was it his lack of response that was nasty?

Just to let you off the hook--I certainly don't want to "cause you" to do anything--those were rhetorical questions.


Still, in our current crisis, we need to try to understand the perils we face. The motivation for a vigorous economic recovery program must come, at least in part, from our forecasts of the dangers ahead. The greatest risk is that appropriate stimulus will be derailed by doubters who still do not appreciate the true condition of our economy.


Why not try to understand the peril using a model which Mises used to predict the great contraction in 1928, Hayek used in explaining the recurrence in the ensuing years and Hazlitt decribed in the 60's and prescribed a model to avoid it. The greatest risk is that ebola will poured into a festering wound of an already weakened social labor unit.

If I understand the post correctly, a forecast has been made about some peril ahead. If they can accurately forecast the peril ahead, why are we having trouble appreciating the true condition? Are these the same forecasters who ignored the peril behind? Are these the same forecasters who continued defying natural economic laws, which put everyone except the forecasters in some perceived peril? The forecasters and provokers of these perils have bunkers to attend.

If the stimulus had some merit or a particle of truth, it could not possibly be derailed or proved to have been be concocted by less than virtuous men. That is the nature of truth. Humans are suspiciously receptive to ideas with merit. Like some viruses and rodents, however, its hard to coerce a human in a direction which put him at previous risk.

Opinions which ride on one wobbly wheel are easily derailed, without a doubter being involved.


Dave, I take full responsibility for my actions. The problem is that you aren't strong enough to hold your like minded friends accountable for theirs.

Go Team!


Beelzebubba - did you follow the link, and if so, did you recognize the author? Saying Shiller failed to predict the current peril shows an ignorance to Shiller's work. The current peril is summed up with the housing bubble, and I can think of no one sounding that alarm louder than Shiller. He generates and publishes the index that everyone uses to show that home prices are now and have been since late 2006 falling - and likewise that they were moving far above long term averages, and above any home-price to rent or home-price to income ratio.

The comments to this entry are closed.