Donlan was totally out to lunch
I agree, the bubble popping part was plain silly. However, he made a decent recovery in Part II ("Why do the Feds underwrite preventable disasters?"). If he had just been able to make the analogy between the first and second editorials . . .
Tom
P.S. I just fired this off to Mr. Donlan:
<<< Your first editorial, "A bubble is not as dangerous as a person who wants to pop it", is ridiculous. However, your second, "Why do the Feds underwrite preventable disasters?" is excellent. If you could make the connection between the two, you'd have a brilliant piece. Last fall, the U.S. bubble was in the process of popping WITHOUT Fed intervention. Then, along came the Fed to patch the bubble up, and blow it bigger. Just as underwriting preventable disasters encourages people to repeat old mistakes, this Fed policy of cushioning markets that deserve to be washed out has enabled the current bubble. >>> |
