Pls help, so sorry, but does anyone know WHERE is the post re- 400 economists

[snot]

or something like that, including some nobel laureates, lined up AGAINST the bailout bill?

Tried searching for 400, economists, nobel, laureates, etc.; no luck.

[lapfog_1]

1. more like 200

and I haven't seen the list verified yet (just like the global warming deniers).

[girl gone mad]

4. Here's a paper that the IMF drew up about this crisis last month.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092504531.html?hpid=topnews

I'd hope you could open your mind a little bit.

The type of bailout on the table has been implemented many times before, and it has met with failure far more often than it has met with success.

[lapfog_1]

8. Read the article. There is a quote from someone who used to be

with the IMF.

And the plan commented on was the original Paulsen plan, not the one voted on last night.

And even in this article, the economists quoted seem to agree that there is a credit crisis. They may disagree on the the affect it will have on the economy, with some saying that "everything is fine, we don't see the danger".

That's sort of like looking up after you jump from a 20 story building. You know that you are falling yet if you look at where you just were... everything is fine.

Perhaps you are the one that is wrong about this.

but it's sort of like the global warming crisis...

If I'm wrong but we act now to implement a plan... what's the worst that can happen?

If you are wrong and we don't do anything... what's the worst that can happen?

[girl gone mad]

11. You didn't read the article.

It was written before the Paulson plan was even released. The plan is never mentioned.

One, I am not advising we do nothing.

Two, do you also think that being opposed to a Global Warming bill which had a good chance of making the Global Warming crisis much more severe would be better than doing nothing about Global Warming?

[lapfog_1]

15. Good, at least we agree that it's not commentary on the current

bill passed by the Senate and now up for consideration by the house.

If we do something (since you are not advising that we do nothing, your double negative indicating that we should do something), by when should we do it? Do we need it done in a day, week, month, 2 months, 6 months, year?

If it's anything short of 4 to 6 months, what practical thing could we get the House and Senate and Bush (Paulson) to agree to? Or do you see any impediments by any of those entities?

You see, you assume that I think this bill is just marvelous. I don't. I see this bill (getting uglier by the minute) as a necessary evil. One whose usefulness in deflecting a severe recession is gated only by the timeliness of implementation. It will not deflect the recession that I think we are already experiencing.

If we take a month to putz around, it won't matter if we pass it or not. Maybe 2 months. More likely 1.

In my estimation, at worst the biggest cost of this bill is a $700B added to the national debt. That's a whopping big number, but only about 7 or 8 percent increase. And that assumes that the assets we buy with that money are all completely worthless, which, of course, they are not.

Could we lose money? Sure. Will this fix the credit crisis... I'm not absolutely sure, since this is also a crisis of trust. But at least it has a chance (and I think a good one) and it's likely the ONLY plan that we can get done in the next four months. Is it perfect? No. Is it even a good plan? Not really... but if it keeps the credit markets going for another 6 to 12 months which means most of us keep our jobs... I'm willing to wait for the redo by an Obama administration.

[girl gone mad]

16. Read the paper.

Throwing good money after bad in bank bailouts has a proven track record of failure.

We could have a better plan in the House tomorrow (today).

Why hand over 700 Billion when we don't have to?

[lapfog_1]

18. I did. I just disagree with it.

And please, see if you can get a vote on either of the plans you mention.

Call Nancy and see if she will forward either of them to the floor for consideration.

By the way, I haven't read either of those plans, but they have this "bottom up" theory stuff.

Which is all well and good. How soon before some commercial bank has a positive balance sheet? Positive enough so they start floating commercial paper again? Because that's key to hundreds of thousands of people getting a payroll check in the next few weeks or months.

[girl gone mad]

2. "Away from Wall Street, Economists Question Basis of Paulson's Plan"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092504531.html?hpid=topnews

[sandnsea]

3. Here, and they oppose it based on right wing ideology

1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.

2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.

3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm

[girl gone mad]

5. Where is the right wing ideology?

Fairness, transparency and long term planning are right wing ideas?

[sandnsea]

6. Read

"Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses."

"America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted."

They objected to this plan basically because they know it means the end of Reaganism. Shame on Democrats in Congress who misrepresented their view.

[girl gone mad]

7. No,

they are accurate that our capital markets have created unprecedented prosperity and they are also right to say that removing the inherent risk associated with those markets will weaken them over time.

That isn't a political view, just standard economic theory.

[lapfog_1]

9. "standard economic theory" as promoted by

Milton Friedman. And Ayn Rand.

Regulation would, in their view, weaken the market by removing inherent risk.

Deregulation would be the opposite (at least that is what they propose).

Are you SURE that you are a democrat and/or progressive? Because your attitude of "let them fail even if they take the economy down with them" sure makes you look like a libertarian.

[girl gone mad]

10. No.

That's not what the statement says at all.

It's just a basic tenant of capitalism. A college level economics textbooks would contain the same language.

The statement they issued was non-partisan as evidenced by the fact that the economists who signed onto it are of all political persuasions.

I don't think the personal attacks are necessary or justified, not the black and white thinking.

Rather than engaging in an honest debate on the merits of this proposal, you seem to have staked out a position and only want to consider facts that support your view.

[lapfog_1]

12. I'm simply pointing out that the positions you hold

are those most closely identified with libertarians, not democrats. Sorry you seem to think that's a personal attack. It's OK to be libertarian... I don't understand it, but it's OK. Are you by any chance voting for Ron Paul for President? Because Barack Obama is supporting the current plan, even gave a short speech in favor of it in the Senate last night. Ron Paul is opposed to the bail out plan.

Just for the record, IMHO the current bill just got a lot worse than the one the House defeated the other day.

As for the stmts being "basic tenant of capitalism", I hardly think so. That would not be Keynesian economic theory... which is what I used to teach to college freshmen. Please don't lecture me on the subject.

[girl gone mad]

13. I support Bernie Sanders plan and..

Dennis Kucinich's plan.

Do you also think they are libertarians?

Every economics professor I ever had said that lower risk is associated with lower returns. There's nothing controversial in that statement, as much as you seem to wish there was.

[lapfog_1]

17. What realistic chance does either the Bernie plan or the Kucinich plan have?

Just about as much chance as Kucinich had of becoming President. Which is to say near zero.

And the statements you made about the need for the markets to provide maximum risk/failure opportunities is not at odds with a bromine about greater risk / greater reward... the question is, should we as a society make any statement at all about limiting the risk / reward arena... i.e. provide ground rules and referees. One can argue this point, but when those "risks" are such that they negatively impact the society as a whole or any a significant portion of that society (who do not, as a rule, participate in the rewards commensurate with the risk imposed, nor are they even ASKED about such risky undertakings), then should not society's will, as expressed by the government of the people, act to limit both risk and reward?

After this is over, we need to re-regulate the markets.

[girl gone mad]

19. Soros's plan would do fine. So would Isaac's.

There are many good options around.

Passing the bailout bill would be making an enormous statement on risk. It says that large institutions can act as recklessly and unethically as they care to and the rest of us will be forced to foot the bill. That's limiting their risk and limiting our reward.

[lapfog_1]

20. Again

we must re-regulate after the inauguration of President Obama.

Then both risk and reward are limited and we will have a return to sound policy (even if forced) by the banks.

Sound regulation and enforcement will prevent future misdeeds.

And, at some point, we will need to deal with another outcome of this mess. Banks and institutions which are near monopoly status... we cannot allow such large institutions to exist because their existence is a threat to our economic stability. Time to break them up.

[girl gone mad]

14. Here is one of the signers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz

Joseph Eugene Stiglitz (born February 9, 1943) is an American economist and a professor at Columbia University. He is a recipient of the John Bates Clark Medal (1979) and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (2001). He is also the former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank. He is known for his critical view of the management of globalization, free-market economists (whom he calls "free market fundamentalists") and some international institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In 2000 Stiglitz founded the Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD), a think tank on international development based at Columbia University. Since 2001 he has been a member of the Columbia faculty, and has held the rank of University Professor since 2003. He also chairs the University of Manchester's Brooks World Poverty Institute and is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Stiglitz is the most cited economist in the world, as of June 2008.



Stiglitz is neither a Randian nor a Friedmanite.

He would not attach his name to a partisan paper.