Comments for Unconfirmed Reports

Comment on Johnny’s Midnight Goggles by Kane

Kane — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:36:25 +0000

that poster looks like the cover of the game Deus Ex:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_Ex

Comment on Hot’n'new Do you wish to become multi-orgasmic? by Suede

Suede — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:08:13 +0000

I just clicked on this article in my reader because I wanted to become multi-orgasmic. But instead, according to your stats, I find I can now say I legitimately am one in a million.

Comment on How McCain Can Win by Suede

Suede — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:07:31 +0000

Brilliant. You may have an alternative career in politics, John.

The concept clearly works, as seen by McCain’s spluttering at Al Qaeda’s endorsement:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26kristof.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

Comment on Why Neo-Liberalism Failed by John Mansfield

John Mansfield — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:11:37 +0000

Suedester, I do agree that foolish government interventions have also had a major role in the crisis.

Comment on Why Neo-Liberalism Failed by John Mansfield

John Mansfield — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:34:11 +0000

Wow. Between the main post, and some very insightful/detailed comments, that “Goodmath” posting gives a fantastic overview of the situation.

Free markets are great things. But the big catch is that like anything else run by human beings, they’re easy to abuse if you’re not honest. The purpose of regulation is to try to limit the kinds of abuse people can get away with. If someone sells you an investment and tells you that your principal is absolutely safe, then damn it, it should be safe. If it’s not, they should be required to tell you what the risks are.

Better than my sub-prime effort.

Comment on Why Neo-Liberalism Failed by Suedester

Suedester — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:04:41 +0000

Of course, it could all just be caused by the pirates:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081015110751.htm

Comment on Why Neo-Liberalism Failed by Suedester

Suedester — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 07:29:19 +0000

Here’s an amusing (in hindsight) NY Times article from 1999, talking about Fannie Mae’s lowering of lending standards:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac0a96f958260&sec=&spon=&&scp=1&sq=Fannie%20Mae%20Eases%20Credit&st=cse
Of note:
”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

Prior to the 1993 (revied CRA) act only about 5-6% of loans were subprime. Afterwards it slowly creeped up to 20-25%.

For a scathing critique of the causes and reactions to current crisis, see Mike Shedlock’s excellent insights:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/02/bank-of-america-asks-congress-for-739.html
He says it’s not the free market’s fault, but grossly negligent government interference that caused the current problems.

Comment on Why Neo-Liberalism Failed by Kane

Kane — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:32:22 +0000

check out this link:
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/09/economic_disasters_and_stupid.php

this math-nerd does a good job of explaining how it all fell apart..

Comment on Why Neo-Liberalism Failed by John Mansfield

John Mansfield — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:58:04 +0000

So you’re saying that banks have failed *because* of government interference? Or, that they haven’t actually failed, they were doing fine, and the government stuck its head it in where it wasn’t needed?

Can I get some references here? Seriously, I want to know more about this.

Comment on Why Neo-Liberalism Failed by Suedester

Suedester — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 08:21:26 +0000

In what way has it failed? Free markets are never smooth by their nature. Throw in huge political interference (forcing banks to make bum loans) and then nationalising those banks in grand gestures - even when many of them are healthy and don’t need assistance - makes the ride even rougher.