tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7590806168352381335.post6816106731568823593..comments2023-05-22T07:06:20.045-04:00Comments on Funny Economist - Randall Parker's Completely Serious Macroeconomics Blog: Go ahead and dither...They did during the Great Depression...Watch what happens.Randall Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10027493610187640456noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7590806168352381335.post-55783338635182808772008-09-24T16:59:00.000-04:002008-09-24T16:59:00.000-04:00Here is a really interesting analysis of the "Sect...Here is a really interesting analysis of the "Section 8" and the dilemmas the lawmakers face should they let it stand:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.cnbc.com/id/26872746" REL="nofollow">http://www.cnbc.com/id/26872746</A>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01017916554114800212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7590806168352381335.post-6551605162648959922008-09-24T16:56:00.000-04:002008-09-24T16:56:00.000-04:00Derek, I think you are absolutely right about some...Derek, I think you are absolutely right about some ignorance in economic education on the part of the lawmakers. It certainly makes the job for Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson very difficult. <BR/><BR/>However, there is also some misunderstanding on the part of BB and HP who have to realize the lawmakers are ELECTED officials and they have SOME RESPONSIBILITY to their constituency, however they may interpret it (like bringing up illogical criticisms of the plan they may not even understand). Therefore, especially Paulson walks a fine line. I think if he were longer in Washington he would probably never proposed the text of "Section 8" (see above). The "Review" provision is great for him doing his job, but it is unacceptable to lawmakers who need to tell the public that they look over his shoulder. The lawmakers would probably let Paulson do his job without much intervention, but politics has its own rules ...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01017916554114800212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7590806168352381335.post-78557938231396243292008-09-24T15:52:00.000-04:002008-09-24T15:52:00.000-04:00I have just enough economic training to be dangero...I have just enough economic training to be dangerous (thanks Dr Parker and the gang) and this is far more training than the average senator or congressman. Even I can tell you that if BB begging for help in stabilizing the country’s financial system you give it to him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7590806168352381335.post-20449266132280095012008-09-24T11:52:00.000-04:002008-09-24T11:52:00.000-04:00It's really a shame Ben has to deal with people li...It's really a shame Ben has to deal with people like DeMint. Hopefully no one will be visiting Elizabeth due to these asinine delays. You always have to watch those accountants. <BR/><BR/>Old classic joke about accountants:<BR/>Q: What's 2 + 2?<BR/><BR/>A: Whatever you want it to be!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7590806168352381335.post-4738376950145697502008-09-24T10:35:00.000-04:002008-09-24T10:35:00.000-04:00It seems that everyone agrees that "something" has...It seems that everyone agrees that "something" has to be done. The lawmakers may not get the urgency, or they may not understand why there is crisis at all, but do you think it is fair for them to question how the assets will be priced or whether there is an oversight (Section 8 does not seem to leave any room for that)? <BR/><BR/>I just wonder whether there was similar discussion in Congress during Great Depression, or whether there were policies which were well intentined but only created more problems? To use the health analogy, it is like stopping the bleeding on a patient and closing the wound, but letting infection develop by lack of proper higine (here: lack of oversight). And unfortunately the infection may in the future create even more serious problems which may have no "quick" fix anymore (here: lack of trust in the US market).<BR/><BR/>FYI, here is Sec. 8, Review (it is only one sentence):<BR/><BR/>"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."<BR/>(here is full text: <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html" REL="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html</A>)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01017916554114800212noreply@blogger.com