And then I asked you why you thought that. (A simple enough question....)
And then you answered by saying it was "bizarre" to even ASK why you thought that.
Because it is. Well maybe "bizarre" is a little strong, but its at least "odd".
"There is no reason to think X", only means you have no reason to think X. There is no "why" you don't have a reason to think X, beyond the fact that you do indeed have no reason to think X. The only answer to the question "why do you think that", is a restating of "that".
but I'm STILL wondering WHY you think it's "bizarre" to even think that Glass Steagal might have possibly had beneficial effects
My statement wasn't the same as, similar to, or something that implies or suggests "It's bizarre to even think that Glass Steagal might have possibly had beneficial effects".
What I called "bizarre" (and now weaken to "odd"), was not the statement "Glass Steagal might have been helpful", but the question "Why do you think that", with "that" equaling "Glass Steagal reduced the occurrence or severity of financial panics/failures/crashes."
If I said " Glass Steagal did not reduce the occurrence or severity of financial panics/failures/crashes", or even that it probably didn't, than I would be making a statement which presumably should be backed by something, facts or logic, evidence of some sort.
But I didn't make such a statement. I didn't make a statement about Glass Steagal and its effects, I made a statement about reasons to think that the law had certain effects.
------
I'll give an example of the point using other things.
Pick some random star, make it far enough away that we would not easily detect planets around, it but close enough that we can easily observe the star with telescopes (it isn't for example in a distant galaxy, or on the opposite side of our galaxy). Assume its not the type of star which would have a problem supporting life (supernova remnant of any type for example, or any highly variable star).
If I said "There isn't intelligent life around that star". It would be reasonable to ask why I thought that.
If I said "There is no reason think there is intelligent life around that star", than I would not really be expected to have a reason behind the statement. Its not a statement that would require evidence, its a statement about the lack of evidence.
The same holds for "There isn't a good reason to think that Glass Steagal reduced the occurrence or severity of financial panics/failures/crashes."
If by why, you mean "why do I think that", then the answer is the same as the statement - There is no reason/evidence.
If by why you mean "why is there no evidence?", than your question makes a bit more sense. I think a likely (but far from certain) answer is that there is no evidence it helped, because it didn't help.
--------------------------
Don't think that I EVER made any direct argument that MORE FREQUENT OCCURRENCES for financial panics and collapses would be bad for the economic growth rate
"And... a GREATER PERIODICITY for mass financial panics and failures and crashes is most certainly *not* conducive to higher levels of either wealth or economic output."
Message 26356546 |
