Whether they wanted it and whether they needed it might not yield the same answers.
I'm coming to the conclusion that many conservatives can't face the reality on the financial crisis (and big banking in general) for the same reasons their views on climate change: It requires acknowledgement that more government regulation is needed.
I too feel like my political views represent the unquestionable truth and anyone who disagrees with my views is simply incapable of dealing with reality.
a very common theme
Who's not facing reality?
Total mischaracterization of what I said. Its not only my view, but the view of the vast majority experts that I've read on the subject (in both of those subjects, actually). I was a much larger free market champion until 2008 and I was much more of a climate change skeptic until I read the research. Questioning is fine but covering up your ears and screaming lalalalalalalalalala I can't hear you (or lalalalalalallalalalala it wasn't the banks or lalalalalalallalalalalalallalalal there is no climate change) is quite another.
At what point does questioning mounds and mounds and mounds of evidence move from questioning to simply having a closed mind?
credentialled experts have spoken. all you kids need to quieten down now.
Not at all what I said either.
Answer my final question, WH.
In case you missed it.
At no point, possibly. Treatments of single questions aren't comprehensive (for social and political problems.)
There can be political objections, too.
Can it be closed mindedness? Yes.
Is it necessarily? No.
so yeah, that was what I was originally responding to. it sounds more like that than you think, Manny.
and remarkably like what we torched y.h. for recently in another thread
admiring one's evidence from the deck of a distant ship
mounds and mounds and mounds
I didn't mischaracterize a damn thing.
You guys can go on believing that there is not enough evidence to clearly point to the need to more (and effective) regulation. You're welcome to believe that me pointing out the overwhelming evidence shows that is some kind of out of hand dismissal (ironic considering the fact that it relies on evidence) of the arguments against it. I don't see it at all.
Its fine to sit in a philosophical circle jerk and say that its never close minded to question whats obvious, but when it comes down to decision making there definitely comes a time when a burden of proof is met.
what's so obvious again?
You absolutely did. Its not my political view: Its the preponderance of evidence. SHOW me where lack of regulations has produced a good results regarding large MNT corps and you might have a point.
Not going to hold my breath waiting for that.
i'm a proponent of prompt action laws and a strong resolution authority. i'm ok with a bank funded rescue fund and a functional equivalent of glass-stegall being adopted.
more than that?
make your case if it's so obvious...
That manny is a logical person who shares a viewpoint with other logical people. Logically, the only way someone can come to a different conclusion than he did is in a world absent of logic.
Lack of effective regulation and the efforts of financial giants led to the financial crisis in 2008.
Is that more regulation? Because I'm pretty sure what I said was "more regulation".
I'll check though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote