To: TimF who wrote (41673 ) 3/6/2010 3:22:31 PM From: DuckTapeSunroof Read Replies (1) | Respond to Re: [There is noting at all "bizarre" in asking you to try to EXPLAIN why you think that Glass Steagal did NOT have a beneficial impact] "I didn't assert that it did not have such an impact. I said there is no reason to think it did. " STILL wondering WHY you think it's "bizarre" to even think that Glass Steagal might have possibly had beneficial effects).We have conversations, not merely collections of unconnected posts. In that post you correctly pointed out it was a big assumption. I'm quite willing to drop the assumption if you are. But if its drop your earlier argument - "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." - is much weaker. might mean that, when they came, they would all wind up as big ones)....as to what you seem to have THOUGHT I was saying that FREQUENT FINANCIAL CRASHES would not only be bad for business (business, after all, relies upon regularity and dependability in the financial system), but also bad for economic growth ... now that you have, in essence, asked me that question I am forced to answer that, YES.... indeed yes! I DO AGREE with that supposition.
