View Single Post
Unread 7 Aug 2009, 09:44   #44
Tactitus
Klaatu barada nikto
 
Tactitus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 3,237
Tactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Exclamation Re: Is Bigger Government Better

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä View Post
"It does not reflect all signatories views on subesquent plans or modifications of the bill"
Yes, I made it very clear that the letter was in reference to the plan then under consideration. As I said initially, some economists were opposed to specific details of the bailout and some were opposed on more general principles. You've asked for an example of the later, which is reasonable, and I provide that below.
Quote:
This would lead me to believe that the people whose names appear on the list are against the specific bail out plan presented by the above mentioned government institutions. This does not mean that they'd be against bail outs per principle, or that they'd think that simply not bailing out would be a better option, or that the bail out plan could not be improved through modifications or follow-up actions.
That's interesting, because of the three "fatal pitfalls" listed in the letter, two of them (#1 and #3) would appear to be valid objections to almost any bailout plan. Of course, people sign petitions for different reasons; but I wonder why you think the letter included pitfalls #1 and #3 if everyone who signed it was really only concerned about pitfall #2?
Quote:
I'll ask again, and I'll try be more specific: could you please point me out an economist with creditentials that will specifically state that the bail outs should have never happened, and bail outs should never happen, because they are "wrong" (because markets clear as per efficient markets model). It's worth mentioning that nobelists like Krugman and Shiller would follow the list to argue that the bail out plan was poor. Yet, they'd probably not argue that it was worse than doing nothing, or, that the whole of the financial sector should be left for free markets to reign.
Well OK; I typed 'libertarian economist' into my search engine and started cross-checking the names against those on the letter I cited. The first match I found was Jeffrey Miron from Harvard. I found this article he wrote for CNN. In it, he argues unequivocally against the bailout. I don't see any way to read his comments as to suggest he was holding out for a better bailout.
Quote:
I doubt any sensible economist nowadays would so trust some pristine efficient market model.
I hope you're not trying to beg the question.
__________________
The Ottawa Citizen and Southam News wish to apologize for our apology to Mark Steyn, published Oct. 22. In correcting the incorrect statements about Mr. Steyn published Oct. 15, we incorrectly published the incorrect correction. We accept and regret that our original regrets were unacceptable and we apologize to Mr. Steyn for any distress caused by our previous apology.
Tactitus is offline   Reply With Quote