Sadie provides this interesting look back
Don Quixote on Aug 06 2011 at 9:17 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
DQ here: Check out the link, too, with some very interesting charts.
Now Sadie’s comment:
A visionary with rose colored glasses. Feh!
April 2011
Related posts:
- An interesting matched set from Sadie
- Let’s all sing like the birdies sing….
- How Sadie’s gloating got hijacked — by guest blogger Sadie
Email This Post To A Friend
9 Responses to “Sadie provides this interesting look back”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think this is a perfect example of what Zach has been telling us for months: If proper Keynesian techniques had been applied, this would have never happened. Obviously, Geithner is no Keynesian, therefore did not try to apply any stimulative remedies.
“And now you’ll have to excuse me, I’ll be late to the seminar I teach, All There Is to Know About Turbo-tax.“
Don Quixote: A visionary with rose colored glasses. Feh!
A skeptical reader would want the original context. What led Geithner to that conclusion? You could say he was stupid, or ignorant, or attempting to undermine the U.S. financial system. Or you might actually try to understand his reasoning in order to understand why he was wrong. Do you know the answer to that question?
Charles Martel: If proper Keynesian techniques had been applied, this would have never happened. Obviously, Geithner is no Keynesian, therefore did not try to apply any stimulative remedies.
As actual Keynesians pointed out, the ARRA was too small and largely misdirected in order to get through Congress. For Keynesianism to work, it has to be countercyclical, not just spending during recessions. The U.S. took a wrong turn when they beat surpluses into deficits, leaving themselves vulnerable to the financial meltdown. The U.S. should have set money aside in a “lock box” for a rainy day, but they didn’t. So, they had to borrow just to keep the system from collapsing completely.
Zach’s 100th repetition of “if only” proves my point: Keynesianism is a philosophy held hardest when it has never been applied (according to its acolytes).
Why does Geithner still have a job?
Probably for the same reason that Holder, Napolitano, Sebelius, Jackson, and Salazar are still employed. Since all of them serve at the pleasure of the president, one can only infer that they perform with the approval of President Obama. Anyone still wondering whether he’s a fool or a knave?
I think this is a perfect example of what Zach has been telling us for months..
Only months … feels like years. You know a skeptical reader (cough cough) could search that all by themselves.
p.s. Libby
Not a knave, but a knife bleeding us dry. I am still waiting for the drug-induced MSM to ask questions and demand answers to Operation Fast & Furious.
Zachriel: A skeptical reader would want the original context. What led Geithner to that conclusion?
No one cares to answer the question? If you listen to the interview, the Republican leadership had assured the Administration that there would be no threat to the full faith and credit of the United States. Those assurances were, er, misplaced.
http://www.infowars.com/flashback-geithner-no-risk-u-s-will-ever-lose-aaa-credit-rating/
Here’s the President expressing the same reliance on the Republican assurances.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-1-2011/dealageddon—-a-compromise-without-revenues
(about 4 minutes in)
Zach, there you go jumping on the “blame the Republicans” bandwagon. Consider that the market crash and the downgrade happened after the debt ceiling deal was hammered out, in other words, after there was no threat to the full faith and credit of the United States. The problem with the deal, from Wall Street’s standpoint, is that the Democrats stopped the Republicans from getting enough of what they wanted to actually begin to address the problem.
I submit that if the rest of the Republican and the Democrats had gone along with what the Tea Party reps in Congress wanted, the market would be going up and the credit would not have been downgraded. It’s not that Washington did too much. It did too little.
Don Quixote: Consider that the market crash and the downgrade happened after the debt ceiling deal was hammered out, in other words, after there was no threat to the full faith and credit of the United States.
The threat is still there. Many in the Congress have made clear that they would be willing to walk away from U.S. financial obligations.