Replies

I am glad that we look at things quite similarly, as it appears: Some of us were convinced that there was a danger of "complete collapse of the economy" in September 2008. Some of us were not, and those of us who were not aren't all tinfoil hatters.

I am actually among those people, too. The dynamics of the crisis itself (as opposed to its main causes) is not yet entirely clear for me. I am far from convinced that Paulson and Bush were justified in taking measures they did. I cannot say this more strongly, but the very idea of government bailouts of private companies is abhorrent to me, even when those companies are banks, which makes the situation more subtle and difficult. Unsurprisingly, therefore, I remain unconvinced that the bailout had to be done,

My point on this thread and elsewhere was a much, much smaller one: that bailout, however questionable and unjustified, was not asked for by the banks (as opposed to Detroit CEOs that were blackmailing Congress into giving them money). While the record on others is less known, Goldman specifically tried to refuse it and is on record to have said so.

What I am asking people to do is to know who their enemies are. If you abhor bailouts (as I do), be angry with the administration that perpetrated it., If you are angry at the deficits that will end up in either huge inflation or recession (or both), then be angry at the Congress and the President that passed those budgets and "stimulus" packages, not the Fed that has nothing to do with that. But for many, that does ruin a nice conspiracy theory.

So that pretty much what happens: I point out to someone that he is confusing monetary and fiscal measures, that is, attributing to the Fed the sins of Congress ---- they turn around and accuse me of "kissing the ass" of Goldman and the Fed and being a fascist.

This is just like the hysteria we've seen on the Left a few years ago. It is very sad to observe it among conservatives, because the inability to reason and getting angry at the wrong parties only weakens our conservative cause.

Thank you for the exchange, Notary Sojac.

P.S. Your point regarding "What we had, and still have, is a solvency not a liquidity problem, and until the balance sheets are purged and properly valued we will continue to have that problem" is also well taken.

TQ:

During the heat of the 2008 "crisis" I repeatedly knocked heads (electronically speaking) with a few Freepers who were explicitly in favor of the Paulson plan .... the Treasury buying up MBS's at face value or something very close to it.

My response was that given the housing crash underway, this was akin to buying up buggy-whip stocks or shares of Pets.com with taxpayer money. I believe that the ensuing three years have vindicated that comparison.

I was called a "commie" and an anti-capitalist at that time, with phrasings very similar to yours in posts #3 and #17.

Therefore I assumed that you were of the same opinion as the bailout supporters.

I hereby apologize for that assumption.