Dave

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Responding to the post by Br. Chris,

I think Matt Taibbi has a point.  Tea Partiers and other small government types were opposed to the bailout and would like to see an end to crony capitalism and the marriage between big business and big government.  In theory, there is nothing wrong with this.  However, the message, as demonstrated by people like Sarah Palin, is ass backwards.  The difference between the way that Matt Taibbi and I look at this is that he thinks she has a pair of iron church bells between her legs and I think she is just talking out of the wrong end of her body.

You mention one reason for this:

 They may be morons, but they aren’t dumb (Dave’s note: moron is probably not an apt description).  They are going to play both sides on this one.  On the one hand, they seed money to the GOP and push them to water down the bill if not kill it entirely.  On the other hand, they give money to the Democrats so that they know if and when the time comes that the Democrats actually pass a bill, they will do so in a way that cements the monopolization of the large existing financial firms. Continue reading this post…

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

While I wait to catch the train out of NYC for the weekend, I thought I’d get my post count up by putting an answer to a question in my previous post into a separate discussion of its own since it involves the ratings agencies, a subject that can (and has) taken on a life of its own separate to my last post.

North asks:

And that said I’d also ask more out of curiosity; my understanding is that currently the rating market is pretty much unregulated by the government so what/where is the hand of the free market moving to punish the rating agencies for their mis-rating fiasco? Continue reading this post…

{ Comments on this entry are closed }