Promises, Promises

good to see you back again. So, some questions for you: How will this bailout affect the situation? Was it needed? Will it help at all? If the bailout wasn't the answer, should we have done something else, or just let the chips fall where they may?

I'd love to see you write for Townhall. Keep up the good work. I hope all is going well for you!

It's been frustrating watching this mess unflod and being essentially unable to respond because my ahoulders were slung up. I've got a lot to say and will folow this one up in a few days with more on how we got here, why the "bailout" isn't anything of the kind, how the Fed shot the only people who correctly assessed the economic situation and what we should do to go forward (a combnation of taking some medicine, curig the disease and getting government the hell out of the way).

I feel like Rocco Baldelli - having spent too much time on the DL, it's time to kick some but in the post season!

Welcome back, dude! It's good to see you still around and kicking!


Now to go back and read the post...

Now that was a perspective worth waitng for...It gives me some food for thought, too. I also have questions.
And you know I'm only good at the basics! Do you believe that the housing stuff will get worse? I already believe the bailout to be a waste. So much unneeded crappola in there. If the gov't had let the market fend for itself and not banned short-seeling do you think the Dow would have reacted so drastically?

Good to see you!!

Welcome back, Fletch. Great piece.

But you left out the critical event that eliminated the most effective checks and balances to contain what you describe: the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. That is the legislation that revoked the Glass-Steagall Act which kept inherently toxic conflicting interests apart by mandating that investment banks, commercial banks and insurance companies cannot own each other or collaborate with each other. That, IMHO, is what opened the floodgates. It was a bipartisan bill made in hell and everything that the government is now doing is cementing the consolidation of these conflicting interests into these "super banks". It is essential that these banks be broken up.

you expressed in such a way that even I could follow, without dumbing it down.

Of course I firmly believe that the last thing that a politician would do is nothing, especially in cases where that's the best thing they could do. Which probably most of the time. After all, once people figured out that they were pretty much good for nothing, how could they buy, err I mean earn, votes?

Now that the gloves are off (almost literally) I'll be trying to make up for lost time and I should be along to visit you all shortly as well.

The next installment comes Thursday and I'm afraid you'll be disappointed Phil. The barriers between mortgage lenders, S&Ls, commercial banks, investment banks, brokers and insurers were all artificial creations that do not exist elsewhere in the world. The next installment is how it was NOT deregulation that precipitated the crisis and the one after that is about how Fannie Mae was doomed on the day it was created in 1938. But, hey, one thing that differentiates from the liberals is that we can disagree and have a civil discussion about the issues.

I look forward to the next two. Thanks to Mises and LRC, I understand the basics of ABCT, but I don't always understand why industry laws and regulations produce the consequences that they do. You couldn't point to a specific law or regulation and ask me what the effect would be. I might know, but the odds aren't in my favor.

I'm on the waiting list for U of I's Econ program. AARGH! I can't help but think about free market education.

Microsoft U! I go down the Circuit City, select a course from a range of choices produced by reputable, popular schools, buy it, install it and validate the course like you would validate your O/S, and I'm off and running.

How much cheaper would those courses be? How much more accessible would higher education be?

AARGH!

I read your post to Heavydoug on his blog yesterday. Think he'll understand any of it? Your posts are always a good read and very easy to understand. Keep up the good work.

No, heavydoug won't get it. Not only can't he grasp basic language concepts, but he complains that because zoos aren't socialized the cost of the visit for a family of four easily reaches $100 even though admission accounts for only about $40 because, I guess, he expects the food and toys and souveniers he buys to be free too.

He's just another example of the intellectual bankruptcy that is all too common on the Left.

Mises.org uses their true money supply and state that it doesn't include things that are like money, but are not.

Is this because those things aren't inflationary if increased?

Or, are they inflationary but not included because they aren't actual money?

echoing my compadres here.

I read that Barney Fwank's b/f is in deep kimchee for HIS part in this mess.

WWRD? You hit it: "getting government the hell out of the way."

Kudos

I actually prefer calling it the "Rothbard" or "Austrian" money supply because "true" seems to imply that the other claculations are without value when, really, they have their uses in specific contexts. The chief advantage of the Rothbard Money Supply is that it makes the effort to eliminate potential double counting of monetized assets and concentrate only on the most liquid assets so that it only describes money available for IMMEDIATE exchange availability.

It captures primarily M1 currency, and a number of things that might be described as "like money" - demand deposits (DDA), savings deposits, and government DDA and notes - but excludes, for example, money market fund shares in bank funds because these are really shares in assets already captured elsewhere in the calculation that would have to be exchanged for those assets before redemption.

I know that's alot to get one's head around so if you need further explanation let me know.

The goal is to identify that which qualifies as a medium of exchange and store of value in either the context of the type of transaction or its impact on the relative demand and availability of liquidity in the marketplace.

If I recall correctly, Mises.org has a detailed explanation on their website with the entire calculation, but you might have to do a little digging for it.

That made more sense than it would have previously.

I've been digging for that on Mises.org. If I have one complaint about the site, it's that their search feature is rather sluggish, but I'll find it.

Welcome back.

I knew it was simple-minded and vague to blame "greedy wall street". The market worked as it was supposed to.

Thank you for your efforts.