We found the WMD: Today's Thomas Friedman column

[Tully365]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/op...dman.html?_r=1

[Tully365]

A related story:
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/103514/

In 2002, George Bush announced an ambitious goal to increase "the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million before the end of the decade," and in 2005, before the house of cards came tumbling down, he said, "I like the idea of home ownership. … What I want is more and more people from all walks of life, including our African-Americans, opening up the door where they live and saying, welcome to my home; welcome to my piece property [sic]."

But the focus on home mortgages misses a crucial point: Through mid-July, banks had written off about $435 billion in bad American mortgages, a drop in the bucket relative to the size of the global economy. There's simply no way that even a major drop in the value of the U.S. housing market could possibly threaten the economic health of most of the planet.

That's where "derivatives" come in. These instruments, which Warren Buffet called "the real Weapons of Mass Destruction," are "worth" about $500 trillion, or roughly 10 times the output of the global economy.

[balli]

I happened to read this a few minutes ago. Good column. Get Bush out.

[Oh, Gee!!]

That's where "derivatives" come in. These instruments, which Warren Buffet called "the real Weapons of Mass Destruction," are "worth" about $500 trillion, or roughly 10 times the output of the global economy.

it's easier to blame poor people.

[Extra Stout]

Yeah, once I figured out that the deregulation of the derivatives market, spearheaded by Phil Gramm, is what turned a small mortgage fiasco into the end of the global financial system as we know it, and that Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong understood what was going on, while Donald Luskin was denying that there was even really a problem, and the rest of the right wing was blaming it on a bill Carter signed in 1977, that was the end of any credibility the right-wing economic establishment had with me.

[MannyIsGod]

Krugman really has been a damn good source of information for the crisis. I get sad because most of his blog posts are about how disappointed he is with the actions of governments to get out of this situation.

[Nbadan]

Yeah, once I figured out that the deregulation of the derivatives market, spearheaded by Phil Gramm, is what turned a small mortgage fiasco into the end of the global financial system as we know it, and that Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong understood what was going on, while Donald Luskin was denying that there was even really a problem, and the rest of the right wing was blaming it on a bill Carter signed in 1977, that was the end of any credibility the right-wing economic establishment had with me.

+1

[Anti.Hero]

We're all ed.

[Wild Cobra]

Why should I consider an article by someone who says:

The confession: I go into restaurants these days, look around at the tables often still crowded with young people, and I have this urge to go from table to table and say: “You don’t know me, but I have to tell you that you shouldn’t be here. You should be saving your money. You should be home eating tuna fish. This financial crisis is so far from over. We are just at the end of the beginning. Please, wrap up that steak in a doggy bag and go home.”

It if just that type of fear that started all the financial mess, along with poor regulations. In fear of a bad "Bush Economy" people started believeing the media hype, which was instumental in the position we have today.

We don't need anyone telling us not to spend money. That just compounds the problems. We need to revitalize the economy. Not hurt it.

Now it doesn't hurt to save money, but it hurts if people don't spend money too.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, if we all just didn't save our money, things would be perfect.

[Extra Stout]

Thomas Sowell wrote a column claiming that the economy isn't even bad, and that liberals and the media are conspiring to make it sound bad so they can force through radical changes.

Is it that's he's simply too stupid to understand current events, or that he finds it necessary to lie to his readers in order to advance his point of view?

[Winehole23]

Thomas Sowell wrote a column claiming that the economy isn't even bad, and that liberals and the media are conspiring to make it sound bad so they can force through radical changes.

Is it that's he's simply too stupid to understand current events, or that he finds it necessary to lie to his readers in order to advance his point of view?

Sowell, as usual, is pandering to his more lumpen compatriots. He's not that stupid, but he wants his readers to be.

It's easier for them to believe our current fix is due to liberal gloomy gusses "talking the economy down" and is fixable by rah-rah-rah and loose spending, rather than a structural problem, one that has been brought on by debt-driven growth, has rendered our entire finance sector insolvent, and may not be fixable at all.

At this point Paulson and Bernanke are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the problem -- $7.4 trillion pledged in just a few months -- with no measurable results so far.

Hopefully, our government will start throwing money at consumers and the real economy, too. Finance and banking appear to be black holes.

Oh, and when the depression comes, we'll be sorry we weren't happy talkers. Because that really would've saved us.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Sowell, as usual, is pandering to his more lumpen compatriots. He's not that stupid, but he wants his readers to be.

quiet, you! that's Xray's go-to-guy.