|
You do really have a lot of nerve. You've passed off everything HamdenRice has said in this thread, which began with an insightful, detailed piece, with a few lines of misrepresentation and a thinly veiled insult. I'm supposed to take *that* seriously and offer a detailed response?
You can search my user name and some simple keywords. My argument has remained consistent since the beginning and was far more detailed until I grew fed up with the fact that individuals like you would continue to shout to the rooftops I said "WHITE WHITE WHITE!!!!! OMG IT'S WHITE!" when I really said it was sort of an off-shade of blue within a khaki border.
In all honesty I have no idea what your "record" is as I don't know you in professional life, and I haven't followed your posts. I suspect the reverse is also true.
In any case, let's follow this very simply.
Every economist and financier in the world without an extreme ideological bent knew drastic measures needed to be taken. They disagreed on the extent and the details, but in the end the most expert and reasonable voices (people who have been criticizing Bush and Greenspan and Phil Gramm, et al for years) said, basically, "Well, it's better than nothing, and something has to be done right now or it won't wait for the next administration."
Leaders of other nations did not vacillate under the pressure of this "gift to the fat cats" meme and did what had to be done for the moment. (And, frankly, most of them are waiting for Obama because they're tired of Bush and Paulson.) Krugman, DeLong ... frankly I've gotten tired of typing out the names, so you can look them up. They are all left-of-center, largely Keynesian economists who said the same damn thing. We don't like it, but we're going to hold our noses and deal with it because doing nothing right now would be calamitous.
If you're going to continue this, please, I beg you, learn the difference between "manically supporting" and "reluctantly support" and use the phrases appropriately.
Thank you.
|