Replies

So you honestly believe you could walk to the Senate this minute and propose a better solution to this financial crisis than Paulson and Bernanke?

Yes, Paulson is one of the greedy pigmen, which means he knows them inside and out, like a parent who knows his kids tricks because he did them once. Paulson is a moron? And Bernanke, who although theoretically, has spent a lifetime studying the causes and mistakes of the Great Depression. Bernanke is an idiot?

Just 2 stupid men who are so stupid that an expenditure of $700 billion is going to lead us to a crisis of hyper-inflation along the lines of Weimar Germany against a national debt of $13 Trillion, against a GDP of $14 Trillion?

And these 2 men are just dunces who are so naive that they are accidentally going to cause a hyper-inflation and have no chance to stop a systemic WORLD financial collapse.

So what is your plan that you would put before Congress today, this minute. How do you plan to prevent a crash of the bond market, which holds multiple times the value of the stock market? How are you going to free the logjam in commercial paper? How are you going to stimulate lending among institutions that are terrified to lend money they fear they might lose as they are already technically insolvent and are trying to stall and find some way to recapture solvency?

Or is your answer just, crash and burn, bring it all down man, let it collapse, they have it coming, who cares if I get laid off or not and can’t find work for 5 years?

>> Paulson is a moron? And Bernanke, who although theoretically, has spent a lifetime studying the causes and mistakes of the Great Depression. Bernanke is an idiot?

Here’s a FACT.

Both Bernanke and Paulson have told us multiple times in their tenure, including quite recently, that the economy was OK.

They never warned us about this supposed horrific event that was just down the pike.

Again, that is simply a FACT. You don’t get to spin it. It just IS.

Now, how would you prefer to explain this FACT?

I’ll grant you that calling either of them “stupid” is hyperbole on my part.

Having said that: is the reason they were so very, very WRONG about recent events — in spite of their experience, education, and access to essentially ALL the financial information there is to possess — because they aren’t quite the top-notch thinkers and executives that they were billed to be?

Or, did they in fact know about the train wreck, and they chose to lie to us?

Which answer do you prefer? If you don’t like “incompetent” we can go with “dishonest”. I chose “incompetent” because it seems more charitable. But it seems to me that it’s one or the other. Either they didn’t know, or they knew and they lied to us.