Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: biotech_bull who wrote (92371)	10/29/2008 1:12:53 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541854

Bio, re: "The question is what ulterior motive is he trying to rationalize away with these implausible claims? One possibility maybe to explain away how the Maestro and his infallible philosophy went so wrong, but one has to wonder if it could be the fact that the two bubbles he helped engineer led to the re-election of sitting Presidents?" I agree. He's too smart to fail to understand what went wrong, and why, so his motives are either personal, political or benevolent for the nation. I don't think they're personal. He's probably more concerned with his reputation with respect to economic history and among his peers than he is with the view of the general public. History and his peers won't fall for his explanation that he failed to see that the self interest of the finance heads was the enemy of the economy and not the friend. It's possible that his motives are political. I don't think there's any question that he caved politically when he gave his seal of approval to the Bush tax cuts. Similarly, I don't think there's any real question concerning whether he loosened up the interest rates and encouraged reckless lending practices in order to allow Bush in 2004 to trumpet that under his Administration "more Americans have realized the dream of home ownership than at any time in history." Bit it's hard to see how his declaration of "I'm shocked" is going to do much, if any, good to Republicans this time around. I tend to think his statement is intended to give cover to Republicans who can point to his statement and claim that they now have to fine tune their philosophy and allow some form of regulation of the "free" market. He may be doing that out of his concern for the economic health of the nation or he may be doing that because of concern for the health of the Republicans who need cover for a change, but either way it's a good thing. Ed