![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This article in Business Week (of all places) is a good discussion of how the Maddow Ponzi/pyramid scheme can be an exemplar of how the US was able to get cheap credit for their less-than-robust financial dealings.
Also, did we all see what Bush said a few days ago?
Um, hello, common factor with all those crises? You don't approve of how the economy is behaving right now, you don't put the conditions in place that make it happen! As for being a "wartime president", who caused those wars. Jesus, if you don't like it, then don't do it.
Erm, so, you have to use "non-free-market" measures to "preserve" the free market system? I know there's a name for that kind of logical fallacy, but since I can't bring it to mind, I'll just stick with moronity. And how did the "excesses of the past" come about, huh?
Actually, I don't think Bush's policies are solely to blame for the current situation. I blame every president since Reagan, including Clinton, who did bugger-all in terms of winding back financial "excesses".
Like Madoff's trusting investors, the rest of the world was willing to assume that the U.S. economy as a whole was a low-risk, good-return investment. This belief drove the entire structure of global trade and finance for the past 10 years. And when the subprime crisis showed this assumption of low risk to be false, the financial crisis resulted.
... The second reason why the low-risk, good-return story wasn't true: the breakdown of regulation. And that's where we come back to the alleged Madoff scam. His was no complicated global securitization, based on black-box rocket science. Instead, it appears to be a good old-fashioned Ponzi scheme, enabled by a lack of government supervision.
... The second reason why the low-risk, good-return story wasn't true: the breakdown of regulation. And that's where we come back to the alleged Madoff scam. His was no complicated global securitization, based on black-box rocket science. Instead, it appears to be a good old-fashioned Ponzi scheme, enabled by a lack of government supervision.
Also, did we all see what Bush said a few days ago?
"Look, everybody likes to be popular," said Bush.
"What do you expect? We've got a major economic problem and I'm the president during the major economic problem. I mean, do people approve of the economy? No. I don't approve of the economy. ... I've been a wartime president. I've dealt with two economic recessions now. I've had, hell, a lot of serious challenges. What matters to me is I didn't compromise my soul to be a popular guy."
"What do you expect? We've got a major economic problem and I'm the president during the major economic problem. I mean, do people approve of the economy? No. I don't approve of the economy. ... I've been a wartime president. I've dealt with two economic recessions now. I've had, hell, a lot of serious challenges. What matters to me is I didn't compromise my soul to be a popular guy."
Um, hello, common factor with all those crises? You don't approve of how the economy is behaving right now, you don't put the conditions in place that make it happen! As for being a "wartime president", who caused those wars. Jesus, if you don't like it, then don't do it.
"I'm a free market guy," Bush said. "But I'm not going to let this economy crater in order to preserve the free market system. So we made a lot of very strong moves and it's been painful for a lot of people, particularly because, you know, this - the excesses of the past have caused a lot of folks to hurt ...."
Erm, so, you have to use "non-free-market" measures to "preserve" the free market system? I know there's a name for that kind of logical fallacy, but since I can't bring it to mind, I'll just stick with moronity. And how did the "excesses of the past" come about, huh?
Actually, I don't think Bush's policies are solely to blame for the current situation. I blame every president since Reagan, including Clinton, who did bugger-all in terms of winding back financial "excesses".